‘Go and Die’ Remark Not Enough for Abetment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Stepmother in Minor Girl Suicide Case
Case Name: Gugan Ram & Anr. v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 23 February 2026
Citation: CRA-S-2198-SB-2004
Bench: Justice Rupinderjit Chahal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish the foundational fact of suicide and where the alleged instigation consists merely of a stray remark without proof of mens rea or proximate nexus to the death. The Court ruled that the alleged statement that the deceased could “take poison and die” did not amount to abetment in the absence of evidence of intentional instigation or sustained harassment.
Summary: The appeal challenged the judgment of conviction dated 11.10.2004 and order of sentence dated 12.10.2004 passed by the Sessions Court whereby the accused were convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Gugan Ram was additionally convicted under Section 354 IPC. During the pendency of the appeal, Gugan Ram died and proceedings against him abated, leaving the appeal to survive only for Somta Devi, the stepmother of the deceased.
The prosecution case arose from the death of a 16-year-old girl, Sushma. It was alleged that after her mother’s death she had been living with her maternal relatives but was later taken to live with her father, Gugan Ram, and his second wife, Somta Devi. According to the prosecution, Sushma had telephonically informed her maternal relatives that her father had been making immoral advances towards her and that she feared for her life. The next day, the relatives learned that she had died and had already been cremated. An FIR was registered several days later under Sections 306, 354 and 201 IPC.
At trial, the prosecution relied primarily on the testimonies of relatives who claimed that the deceased had made telephonic disclosures regarding harassment and fear. The prosecution also relied on circumstantial evidence including recovery of partially burnt bones and ashes from the cremation ground, which were sent for forensic examination. However, the forensic report did not reveal the presence of poison. The complainant himself admitted during cross-examination that he did not know how the deceased had died.
The defence argued that the girl had suddenly developed severe abdominal pain and died before she could be taken to a hospital. It was also contended that the father had informed the maternal relatives telephonically about the death before the cremation. Defence witnesses supported this version and their testimony remained largely unimpeached.
Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant contended that the conviction was unsustainable as the prosecution failed to establish suicide, a foundational requirement for Section 306 IPC. It was argued that no post-mortem examination had been conducted and the forensic report did not detect poison. Counsel further submitted that the only allegation against Somta Devi was that she allegedly told the deceased that if she felt ashamed she could take poison and die. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it was argued that such stray remarks cannot constitute abetment of suicide.
The State, on the other hand, supported the conviction and argued that the circumstances indicated an atmosphere of harassment and distress which ultimately led the deceased to commit suicide.
The High Court examined the legal requirements of Section 306 IPC and reiterated that the prosecution must first prove that the deceased committed suicide and then establish abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, namely instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding. The Court relied upon precedents including Ude Singh v. State of Haryana and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which emphasize that mere harassment or stray remarks without intention to instigate suicide do not satisfy the requirements of abetment.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the death was suicidal in nature. No post-mortem examination had been conducted and the forensic examination of the ashes did not detect poison. In such circumstances, the foundational fact of suicide remained unproven.
The Court further observed that even if the death were assumed to be suicidal, the evidence did not establish abetment by the appellant. The alleged statement attributed to Somta Devi was, at best, a stray remark lacking the necessary mens rea to constitute instigation. There was no evidence of continuous harassment or conduct creating circumstances compelling the deceased to commit suicide. The Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof in criminal law.
The Court also noted the unexplained six-day delay in lodging the FIR, which further weakened the prosecution case and raised the possibility of embellishment.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of Somta Devi under Section 306 IPC. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove suicide or abetment beyond reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, resulting in her acquittal.