New Delhi: On 13 July 2018, a 39-year-old woman from Delhi’s Panchsheel Park sent a WhatsApp message to a friend at 2:56 pm, saying her husband had locked her inside a room.
“Please call police. Please come if you can. I am locked up…” she wrote. A minute later, she said her husband was “guarding my room” from outside and shared her flat number. Her friend, however, replied that she was not in Delhi.
At 4:12 pm, the woman sent another message: “I am going to kill myself today bcoz M (name changed) has driven me to it. He finally let me out but I can’t repair what he has done.”
She also messaged her lawyer and wrote, “I would like you to plz fight for me after I’m gone.”
Around 4:30 pm, just 18 minutes after her last message to her friend, the woman fell from the terrace of her matrimonial home in the upscale residential colony. She was taken to Max Hospital in Saket, where she was declared dead on arrival at approximately 5:50 pm.
These WhatsApp messages, along with other texts and emails written by the woman, became key evidence in a criminal case against her husband, who faced allegations of cruelty, abetment of suicide and dowry death. However, eight years after her death, the Delhi High Court has discharged him from all the charges.
In a judgment delivered on 4 November, Justice Madhu Jain held that the messages and emails did not establish the essential ingredients of the offences. While the woman’s final messages blamed her husband for driving her to suicide, the court said such an attribution, by itself, did not establish instigation or intentional aid in the commission of suicide.
The court also found insufficient evidence to establish dowry demands or statutory cruelty. It held that the trial court had placed excessive reliance on the woman’s final WhatsApp messages without independently examining whether the legal requirements for the charges had been met.
Also Read: Delhi HC draws jurisdictional ‘Lakshman Rekha’ for IP suits, returns 17 plaints
The case before the trial court
The woman married the accused on 23 February 2016. She allegedly faced physical and mental cruelty from him on several occasions during 2016 and 2017. On 27 June 2018, her father also filed a complaint against the husband alleging cruelty.
In a complaint filed after her death, the woman’s parents alleged that her husband and in-laws had pressured her to sell a flat in Vasant Kunj, jointly owned by her and her mother. The flat was sold in June 2018. According to the parents, the matrimonial dispute escalated because she refused to hand over the sale proceeds to her husband and his parents.
In December 2019, the trial court considered the woman’s WhatsApp messages and emails, which contained allegations of assault and matrimonial cruelty. Relying particularly on her final messages before her death, it framed charges against the husband for cruelty and abetment of suicide.
However, the trial court did not frame a charge of dowry death, as the woman’s emails contained no reference to dowry demands. It also discharged her in-laws, finding insufficient material to proceed against them.
The defence argued that the messages could not independently establish criminal liability and that the circumstances surrounding her fall also left open the possibility of an accident.
Notably, the post-mortem examination attributed the woman’s death to multiple fatal injuries caused by blunt-force impact. The forensic report recorded an alcohol concentration of 298 mg per 100 ml of blood. Such a concentration amounts to severe intoxication and could lead to stupor and intermittent unconsciousness. The Medical Board did not conclusively determine whether the fall was accidental, suicidal or homicidal.
The matter subsequently reached the Delhi High Court. The woman’s parents challenged the trial court’s decision to discharge the accused from the dowry death charge, while the husband challenged the framing of charges against him for cruelty and abetment of suicide.
Arguments before the High Court
The woman’s parents argued that the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard while considering the allegations of dowry death. They contended that demands for money and jewellery amounted to dowry demands and that supplementary statements made by them should not have been discarded.
They also reiterated their allegation that the husband’s parents had actively participated in the harassment that preceded the woman’s death.
The husband and his parents, on the other hand, argued that the marriage was a love marriage and that no dowry had been demanded. They pointed out that an email the woman had sent to her lawyer on 23 June 2018 did not mention any dowry demand. Her father’s complaint filed in June 2018 also contained no specific allegation of dowry demands, they submitted. The allegations concerning demands for money and jewellery had surfaced only in subsequent statements.
The defence further argued that there was no evidence that the husband had taken possession of the proceeds from the Vasant Kunj flat sale. It also pointed out that his parents lived separately and had no specific role in the alleged harassment or the woman’s death.
On the charge of abetment of suicide, the husband argued that the prosecution had failed to establish instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The defence also questioned the evidentiary value of the WhatsApp messages and argued that the possibility of an accidental fall could not be ruled out, particularly in view of the alcohol concentration recorded in the post-mortem report.
High Court’s findings
The High Court found insufficient material to sustain the allegation of dowry death. It noted that the woman’s email contained no reference to dowry demands, the proceeds from the sale of the Vasant Kunj flat or harassment intended to force her to hand over the money.
The court also noted that the allegations of demands for money and jewellery appeared in subsequent statements rather than in the earlier communications. It therefore found no sufficient basis to proceed against the husband’s parents on the dowry death charge.
On the allegation of abetment of suicide against the husband, the High Court emphasised that mere harassment, matrimonial discord or a strained relationship did not automatically constitute abetment.
The court acknowledged the significance of the woman’s final WhatsApp message, in which she said she would kill herself because her husband had driven her to it. However, it held that her attribution of responsibility to another person could not, by itself, establish instigation or intentional aid in suicide.
Even accepting the allegation that the husband had confined her to a room, the court found insufficient material to show that he had done so with the intention of provoking or facilitating her suicide.
The court also considered allegations of physical violence between the couple. It observed that the material and arguments before it indicated that both partners had reacted violently towards each other. While the marriage was clearly troubled, the court said the evidence did not establish the additional mental element necessary to constitute abetment of suicide.
It also referred to WhatsApp exchanges between the woman and her mother, which indicated that she had been receiving treatment for depression and had been diagnosed with self-harming and self-destructive tendencies.
The court stressed that cruelty and abetment of suicide were two distinct legal questions. Even if cruelty was established, it would not automatically establish abetment. Cruelty could provide the circumstances in which abetment occurred, but it could not, by itself, prove the offence.
The court also considered the alcohol concentration recorded in the woman’s blood and observed that the possibility of an accidental fall could not be excluded. It held that the overall material did not raise sufficient suspicion that the husband had abetted her suicide.
While examining the charge of cruelty, the High Court considered the couple’s relationship as a whole. This included repeated arguments, allegations and counter-allegations, incidents of physical violence, attempts at reconciliation, discussions about separation, counselling, medical treatment and communications involving the woman’s mother.
The court concluded that the material did not establish the statutory ingredients necessary to sustain the charge of cruelty against the husband.
It also found that the trial court had given excessive weight to the woman’s final WhatsApp messages to her friend and lawyer without independently examining whether those messages, along with the earlier communications, established the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide against the husband and discharged him.
Justice Madhu Jain observed,“The anguish arising from a troubled marriage is understandable, but it cannot justify drawing the entire family into criminal proceedings without a specific role being attributed to the persons concerned.”
If you are feeling suicidal or depressed, please call a helpline number in your state.
Giridharan Velamore is a TPSJ alum currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Chingkheinganbi Mayengbam)
Also Read: Indian courts are sitting on a data goldmine. Delhi HC has a chance to tap it first