[Dowry Death] Mere Suspicion Of Extramarital Affair Without More Not Enough For Abetment Of Suicide: Delhi High Court

While granting bail to a husband in a dowry death case, the Delhi High Court held that mere suspicion of extramarital affair or strained relations without more is not enough to invoke the charge of abetment of suicide.

“…with respect to the alternative charge under Section 306 IPC, the law requires a clearly discernible act of instigation, provocation, or intentional omission. Mere suspicion of an affair or even strained relations, without more, does not meet this threshold,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

The Court reiterated that extramarital affair, per se, does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC or abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC, unless it is shown that the relationship was pursued in a manner calculated to harass or torment the deceased.

“In order to determine as to whether such a relationship amounts to cruelty to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, the other essential ingredients of the said offence will also need to be satisfied, which will depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case,” the Court said.

It was alleged that the deceased had, during telephonic conversations, disclosed that the husband was having an extra-marital affair with his office colleague.

It was further alleged that when confronted, the husband had physically abused the deceased wife and that in the year preceding her death, she was regularly subjected to domestic violence.

Granting bail to the husband, the Court noted that the prosecution case hinged largely on post-incident statements made by the deceased's parents and sister.

It said that the allegations of dowry harassment were specifically tied to the claim that the husband pressurised the deceased to arrange funds for the payment of car instalments. However, it added that no complaint, was made by the deceased or her family, during her lifetime, regarding the alleged demand.

“The absence of any contemporaneous grievance prima facie dilutes the immediacy and plausibility of the dowry-related harassment claim,” the Court said.

It added that prima facie, there was no indication of affirmative acts, whether by commission or omission, that drove the deceased to a state of desperation immediately preceding her death. The Court concluded that the statutory threshold for invoking Section 306 IPC prima facie remained unsatisfied.

“The Applicant has remained in custody since 20th March, 2024. The investigation stands concluded, the chargesheet has been filed, and the case is currently at the stage of prosecution evidence. Given the volume of evidence and number of witnesses cited, the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. No risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice has been demonstrated. In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the Applicant would serve no fruitful purpose,” the Court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. M. Begum, Mr. Shailendra Singh, Mr. Harsh Chaudhary, Mr. Ishaan Jain, Ms. Avneet Kaur, Mr. Sumit Singh and Mr. Surya Pratap, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State; Mr. M.N. Jha, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar and Ms. Meenakshi, Advocates for Complainant

Title: ANSHUL v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 553

Click here to read order