Dowry Death & Abetment to Suicide | Suicide Note Alone Insufficient Without Proof of Cruelty : Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that convictions under Sections 304-B, 306, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot rest solely on a suicide note without corroborative evidence of cruelty or abetment. The judgment underscores the necessity of proving the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC for abetment and highlights the limitations of presumptive evidence in dowry death cases, particularly when the victim’s family admits to cordial relations with the accused.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The case arose from the suicide of Barkha Badkur on 22 May 2020, six years after her marriage to Lokesh Badkur. The prosecution alleged that Barkha was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by her husband and in-laws, leading to her death. A suicide note (Ex.D/2) named her devar (brother-in-law) Pawan Badkur and devrani (sister-in-law) Priyanka Badkur as responsible for her distress, stating they had tortured her and requesting her parents to take away her husband and children.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• 2020: FIR registered under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A IPC, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
• 2021: Trial conducted in S.T. No. 11/2021 before the Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram.
• 2 August 2022: Trial court acquitted all four accused - Priyanka Badkur, Lokesh Badkur, Pawan Badkur, and Gokuldas Badkur - holding that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty or abetment.
• 2023: State of Madhya Pradesh filed Criminal Appeal No. 8353 of 2023 challenging the acquittal, with a delay of 240 days, which was condoned by the High Court.

The Parties' Positions

The prosecution relied heavily on the suicide note (Ex.D/2) to argue that the accused had instigated Barkha’s suicide. However, the trial court noted that:

• No specific allegations were made against Lokesh Badkur (husband) and Gokuldas Badkur (father-in-law) in the suicide note.
• The dispute between Barkha and her husband stemmed from his alcoholism, not dowry demands.
• The dispute with Pawan and Priyanka related to financial disagreements, not cruelty.

The Legal Issue

The central questions before the High Court were:

1. Whether a suicide note alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B, 306, or 498-A IPC without corroborative evidence of cruelty or abetment.
2. Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC (abetment) or Section 304-B IPC (dowry death) beyond reasonable doubt.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh)

The State contended that:

• The suicide note (Ex.D/2) constituted a dying declaration and should be treated as conclusive evidence of cruelty and abetment.
• The death occurred within seven years of marriage, invoking the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act for dowry death.
• The trial court erred in ignoring the suicide note and acquitting the accused without considering its evidentiary value.

For the Respondents (Accused)

The accused argued that:

• The suicide note did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 107 IPC, as there was no instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid to abet suicide.
• The prosecution witnesses, including Barkha’s parents, admitted in cross-examination that she lived happily in her matrimonial home for years and no dowry demands were made.
• The dispute between Barkha and Pawan/Priyanka was financial, not criminal, and did not amount to cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
• The trial court’s acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of evidence and should not be interfered with.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court conducted a meticulous examination of the evidence and legal principles governing dowry death and abetment to suicide.

Evidentiary Value of the Suicide Note

The Court observed that while the suicide note (Ex.D/2) named Pawan and Priyanka as responsible for Barkha’s distress, it did not satisfy the legal requirements for abetment under Section 107 IPC. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahabir and others v. State of Haryana (2025 SCC OnLine SC 184), which held that abetment requires:

1. Instigation: Provoking or urging someone to commit suicide.
2. Conspiracy: A prior agreement to aid or abet the act.
3. Intentional Aid: Active assistance or encouragement to commit suicide.

The Court found that the suicide note did not establish any of these elements. The dispute between Barkha and Pawan/Priyanka was financial, and there was no evidence of instigation or conspiracy.

"None of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC are made out. There is no material to show that firstly, there was any instigation to commit suicide. Secondly, it is not proved that there was any conspiracy against Barkha to do that act and, thirdly, there was no intentional aid to force Barkha to commit suicide."

Dowry Death and Cruelty Under Section 304-B IPC

The Court examined whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, which requires:

1. Death of a woman within seven years of marriage.
2. Cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relatives.
3. Such cruelty or harassment was in connection with a demand for dowry.

The Court noted that:

• Barkha’s parents admitted in cross-examination that she lived happily in her matrimonial home for years and no dowry demands were made.
• The prosecution failed to substantiate any demand for dowry or harassment related to dowry.
• The presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act (presumption of dowry death) was rebutted by the defence’s evidence of cordial relations.

Abetment to Suicide Under Section 306 IPC

The Court held that Section 306 IPC could not be invoked because:

• The dispute between Barkha and her husband was due to his alcoholism, not abetment.
• The financial disagreement with Pawan and Priyanka did not amount to instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide.
• The prosecution failed to prove that the accused had the requisite mens rea to abet suicide.

Acquittal Under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act

The Court upheld the acquittal under Section 498-A IPC (cruelty) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, noting that:

• The prosecution witnesses admitted that Barkha was well-treated and no dowry demands were made.
• The allegations of cruelty were vague and unsupported by evidence.
• The trial court’s finding that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty beyond reasonable doubt was correct.

The Verdict

The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, upholding the trial court’s acquittal of all four accused. The Court held that:

1. The suicide note alone was insufficient to prove abetment under Section 306 IPC or cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
2. The prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC (dowry death) or Section 107 IPC (abetment).
3. The trial court’s appreciation of evidence was sound and did not warrant interference.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Suicide Note Alone Is Not Conclusive Evidence

Practitioners must note that:

• A suicide note, while admissible as evidence, cannot sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B, 306, or 498-A IPC without corroborative proof of cruelty or abetment.
• Courts will scrutinize whether the suicide note satisfies the legal requirements of Section 107 IPC (instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid).
• Financial disputes or personal disagreements, even if mentioned in a suicide note, do not automatically amount to abetment or cruelty.

Dowry Death Presumption Requires Corroboration

• The presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act (dowry death) is rebuttable and requires the prosecution to first prove cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry.
• Admissions by the victim’s family that relations were cordial can rebut the presumption, shifting the burden back to the prosecution.
• Mere death within seven years of marriage is insufficient to invoke Section 304-B IPC without proof of dowry-related cruelty.

Alcoholism and Domestic Disputes Are Not Criminal Offences

• Disputes arising from alcoholism or financial disagreements do not constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC unless there is evidence of instigation or intentional aid.
• Courts will distinguish between criminal conduct and personal disputes, requiring clear proof of mens rea for abetment.

Trial Courts’ Acquittals Deserve Deference

• Appellate courts will not interfere with acquittals unless the trial court’s appreciation of evidence is perverse or legally unsustainable.
• Prosecutors must ensure that charges are framed based on specific allegations against each accused, not generalised claims.