Sunil Dutt Pathak vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 February, 2026

2026:UHC:1053

Judgment reserved on:22.12.2025
Judgment delivered on:18.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2011

Sunil Dutt Pathak ......Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent

Presence:

Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment and
order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham
Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 2006, whereby the Appellant,
Sunil Dutt Pathak, has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of
₹10,000/, with a default stipulation.
2. The case, as unfolded in the First Information Report and during
trial, is that the deceased, who was the legally wedded wife of the
Appellant, committed suicide by hanging on 15.09.2004 at her
matrimonial home situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.
3. It was allegedthat the Appellant used to suspect the character of
the deceased and, on that account, subjected her to mental harassment

1
Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011, Sunil Dutt Pathak Vs State of Uttarakhand-

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1053

and humiliation. Such conduct on the part of the Appellant created an
unbearable situation for the deceased, which ultimately drove her to
commit suicide.
4. The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was
asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There was no allegation
of homicidal violence.
5. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted
against the Appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions
and registered as Sessions Trial No. 113 of 2006.
6. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial court acquitted
the Appellant of the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC,
holding that the ingredients of dowry death and cruelty in connection
with dowry were not established beyond reasonable doubt. However,
the learned trial court convicted the Appellant under Section 306 IPC,
observing that the conduct of the Appellant in suspecting the character
of his wife amounted to abetment of suicide.
7. The conviction under Section 306 IPC is thus founded not on any
allegation of dowry demand or physical cruelty, but essentially on the
allegation that the Appellant used to doubt the character of the deceased
and allegedly subjected her to mental harassment on that basis.
8. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC,
the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The procedural journey
of this appeal, including its admission and interim orders, is reflected in
the record of Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has assailed the
impugned judgment on the ground that the essential ingredients of
abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC have not been established,
and therefore, the conviction under Section 306 IPC is legally
unsustainable.

2
Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011, Sunil Dutt Pathak Vs State of Uttarakhand-

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1053

10. It is submitted that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, the
prosecution must prove not only the fact of suicide but also that the
accused had abetted the commission of suicide by instigation,
conspiracy, or intentional aiding, coupled with the requisite mens rea.
11. Learned Counsel contends that in the present case, there is no
evidence of any specific overt act on the part of the Appellant
immediately preceding the suicide. There is no allegation of any direct
incitement, exhortation, or conduct compelling the deceased to take the
extreme step.
12. It is further argued that the allegation that the Appellant used to
suspect the character of the deceased, even if taken at face value, does
not constitute "instigation" within the meaning of Section 107 IPC.
Suspicion, strained relations, or marital discord, by themselves, do not
amount to abetment unless accompanied by active incitement or
intentional aiding.
13. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the prosecution
witnesses are primarily close relatives of the deceased, and their
testimonies are interested in nature. It is argued that their statements are
general and omnibus, lacking specific instances of cruelty or
harassment of such intensity as would drive a person to commit suicide.
14. It is contended that the learned trial court, while acquitting the
Appellant of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, has
nonetheless convicted him under Section 306 IPC without identifying
any distinct act constituting abetment. According to learned Counsel,
this approach is internally inconsistent and contrary to settled principles
of criminal jurisprudence.
15. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that there is no
evidence of any suicide note blaming the Appellant, nor any material

3
Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011, Sunil Dutt Pathak Vs State of Uttarakhand-

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1053

establishing a proximate and live link between the alleged conduct of
the Appellant and the act of suicide.
16. It is argued that the learned trial court has proceeded on the basis
of moral suspicion rather than legal proof, and has equated matrimonial
discord with criminal abetment, which is impermissible in law.
17. Lastly, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that suspicion,
however strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable
doubt, and that the State has failed to establish the essential elements of
abetment, entitling the Appellant to acquittal.
18. Per contra, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State supports
the impugned judgment and contends that the learned trial court has
rightly appreciated the evidence on record.
19. It is submitted that the consistent testimony of the prosecution
witnesses demonstrates that the Appellant used to suspect the character
of the deceased and subject her to humiliation and mental harassment
on that account.
20. LearnedCounsel for the State contends that such repeated
humiliation and mental cruelty created a hostile and oppressive
environment in the matrimonial home, which ultimately drove the
deceased to commit suicide.
21. It is further argued that abetment need not always be in the form
of direct exhortation and that instigation may be inferred from the
cumulative conduct of the accused.
22. According to the counsel for State, the surrounding
circumstances, read in totality, indicate that the conduct of the
Appellant had a direct bearing on the mental state of the deceased, and
therefore, the learned trial court was justified in recording a conviction
under Section 306 IPC.

4
Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011, Sunil Dutt Pathak Vs State of Uttarakhand-

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1053

23. It is lastly submitted that this Court, while exercising appellate
jurisdiction, should not lightly interfere with findings of fact recorded
by the trial court unless they are perverse or wholly unsupported by
evidence.
24. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
25. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased
committed suicide by hanging on 15.09.2004. The post-mortem report
clearly indicates that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of
ante-mortem hanging. The foundational fact of suicide, therefore,
stands established.
26. The core question that arises for consideration is whether the
Appellant can be said to have abetted the commission of suicide within
the meaning of Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC.
27. Section 306 IPC provides punishment for abetment of suicide. In
order to bring home a charge under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution
must establish: (i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that the
accused abetted the commission of such suicide.
28. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC to include
instigation to commit an act, engaging in conspiracy for its
commission, or intentionally aiding the doing of that act. The essence
of abetment is a positive act on the part of the accused with the
intention to provoke, incite, or encourage the commission of the act.
29. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
consistently holds that mere harassment, ordinary domestic discord, or
casual remarks cannot amount to instigation unless there is clear mens
rea and a proximate nexus between the conduct of the accused and the
act of suicide.
30. Instigation, in the legal sense, connotes active suggestion or
stimulation of the mind of the victim to commit suicide. It must be

5
Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011, Sunil Dutt Pathak Vs State of Uttarakhand-

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1053

shown that the accused had the intention to drive the deceased to
commit suicide or had knowledge that his conduct was likely to result
in such consequence.
31. In the present case, the entire case rests on the allegation that the
Appellant used to suspect the character of his wife and allegedly
subjected her to mental harassment on that basis. The question is
whether such conduct, even if assumed to be true, satisfies the statutory
requirement of abetment.
32. A careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
reveals that the allegations against the Appellant are general and
omnibus in nature. The witnesses have deposed about suspicion and
strained relations but have not attributed any specific overt act of
instigation, provocation, or intentional aiding immediately preceding
the suicide.
33. Significantly, the learned trial court itself has acquitted the
Appellant of the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The
finding of acquittal on those charges indicates that the evidence was not
considered sufficient to establish cruelty of the nature contemplated
under Section 498-A IPC or dowry-related harassment under Section
304-B IPC.
34. In such circumstances, the conviction under Section 306 IPC
must be supported by clear and cogent evidence demonstrating that the
Appellant's conduct amounted to abetment in the strict legal sense.
However, the impugned judgment does not identify any distinct act of
instigation or intentional aiding beyond the allegation of suspicion
regarding the character of the deceased.
35. Matrimonial discord, suspicion, and quarrels, though unfortunate,
are not uncommon in marital life. Criminal liability under Section 306
IPC cannot be fastened merely because the relationship between

6
Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011, Sunil Dutt Pathak Vs State of Uttarakhand-

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1053

spouses was strained or because the accused harboured doubts about
the character of the deceased.
36. Equally important is the requirement of proximity. The law
requires a live and proximate link between the conduct of the accused
and the act of suicide. The evidence on record does not establish any
such proximate act occurring immediately prior to the suicide.
37. The learned trial court appears to have inferred abetment from the
cumulative circumstances of suspicion and alleged mental harassment.
However, inference cannot substitute proof. The prosecution must
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the mens rea to
abet and that his acts were such as to push the deceased into a position
where she was left with no other alternative.
38. The absence of any suicide note implicating the Appellant,
though not decisive by itself, assumes significance in the present case
where the evidence is otherwise general in nature. There is no
contemporaneous material showing that the deceased blamed the
Appellant for her extreme step.
39. It is a settled principle of criminal law that suspicion, however
strong, cannot take the place of proof. Courts must guard against the
tendency to convert moral blame into criminal liability unless the
statutory ingredients are strictly satisfied.
40. The learned trial court, in convicting the Appellant under Section
306 IPC, appears to have equated suspicion of character with abetment
of suicide. Such an approach dilutes the stringent requirements of
Section 107 IPC and expands the scope of Section 306 IPC beyond its
legislative intent.
41. The essential ingredients of abetment, namely, mens rea and
active or proximate conduct amounting to instigation or intentional
aiding, are conspicuously absent.

7
Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011, Sunil Dutt Pathak Vs State of Uttarakhand-

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1053

42. Consequently, the conviction of the Appellant under Section 306
IPC cannot be sustained in law.

ORDER

In view of the discussion and findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the State has failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment as contemplated under Section 107 IPC so as to sustain the conviction of the Appellant under Section 306 IPC.

While the factum of suicide stands proved, the evidence on record does not demonstrate any act of instigation, intentional aiding, or proximate conduct on the part of the Appellant which could legally amount to abetment of suicide. The conviction recorded by the learned trial court is thus not supported by legally admissible and cogent evidence satisfying the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 2006, convicting the Appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine, is hereby set aside.

The criminal appeal is accordingly allowed. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the trial court concerned for information and compliance.

(Ashish Naithani J.)

Dated:18.02.2026 NR/

Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011, Sunil Dutt Pathak Vs State of Uttarakhand-

Ashish Naithani J.