Delhi HC upholds acquittal in husband's suicide case citing lack of clear evidence
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, delivering the verdict on July 10, stated that criminal conviction demands clear, direct, and proximate evidence and the court found no act of instigation, provocation, or encouragement by the accused that could be linked to the deceased's decision to take his own life.
The case traces back to April 2010, when husband, Vijay Singh, died by suicide, two years after his marriage to Urmila. A suicide note submitted by his father alleged mental harassment and threats of false dowry accusations by Urmila and her family.
However, the court noted that the language used in the note was general and accusatory, lacking the specificity required to establish legal culpability.
Importantly, the court questioned the timing of the note, observing that it might have been penned earlier, in a state of emotional turmoil, rather than immediately before the suicide.
Allegations from Singh's family centred around claims that Urmila and her brothers had issued threats and subjected him to harassment. Yet, the High Court found these allegations to be vague, unsupported by concrete incidents or dates, and insufficient to sustain charges under Section 306 of the IPC, which pertains to abetment of suicide.
During the trial, Singh's parents also testified to marital discord and alleged acts of cruelty by Urmila, including attempted self-harm. But the bench noted that these statements were suggestive of her own emotional distress, rather than evidence of any intentional conduct aimed at driving her husband to suicide.
Concluding there was no 'positive action' by the accused that directly contributed to the tragic outcome, the High Court dismissed the appeal against their acquittal.
'In the absence of specific and immediate acts of instigation, the charges of abetment cannot be sustained,' the court held. (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
Wildlife crime cases in India decline significantly: Govt
India recorded over 2,700 wildlife crime cases from 2020 to 2024, with West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana reporting some of the highest numbers, according to government data. Responding to a question in the Lok Sabha, Union Minister of State for Environment Kirti Vardhan Singh said the responsibility for conservation and protection of wildlife, including prevention of illegal trafficking, lies primarily with the state governments and Union Territories under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) collects and shares intelligence, coordinates enforcement and issues alerts to combat organised wildlife crime. The data shows India recorded a total of 2,701 wildlife crime cases from 2020 to 2024. The country registered 820 cases in 2020; 632 in 2021; 546 in 2022; 349 in 2023 and 354 in 2024. Between 2020 and 2024, West Bengal recorded the highest number of cases at 349, followed by Uttar Pradesh with 297 and Haryana with 243. Tamil Nadu logged 200 such cases, Assam 178, Uttarakhand 15, Andhra Pradesh 153, Madhya Pradesh 145, Odisha 143, Karnataka 84, Maharashtra 77, Himachal Pradesh 76, Meghalaya 71, Telangana 51, and Punjab 49. Singh said the WCCB works with state agencies, customs, border forces and international organisations like INTERPOL and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to tackle wildlife trafficking. India is also a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), with its provisions incorporated into the Wild Life (Protection) Act through a 2022 amendment. In the last five years, the WCCB conducted 806 training programmes for government officials and 128 awareness campaigns and community outreach initiatives to curb wildlife trafficking.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
ED files prosecution complaint in interstate investment fraud case
Panaji: The enforcement directorate (ED), Goa, has filed a prosecution complaint against Krishan Kumar alias Vijay Kumar Jaiswal alias Vijay Kishan Jaiswal, his wife Rashmi alias Rashmi Jaiswal, and three companies promoted by them, in connection with an alleged inter-state investment fraud. The ED filed the prosecution complaint before the special court (Prevention of Money Laundering Act or PMLA), North Goa. The prosecution complaint was filed for the commission of the offence of money laundering as defined under the act. The ED stated that the accused are the directors of the companies. The case arises from multiple FIRs registered by law enforcement agencies against Krishan and others in Goa, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh for offences under various sections of the IPC, the Goa Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The ED investigation revealed that the accused, acting in conspiracy, incorporated three companies, namely Yudivo Marketing Private Limited, Yudivo Lifecare Private Limited, and Yudivo Property and Profits Private Limited, and floated fraudulent multi-level marketing schemes under the guise of direct selling and investment plans. Innocent investors from multiple states were lured with false promises of high returns and incentives, leading to an overall collection of approximately Rs 3 crore from the public at large, the ED said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You To Read in 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The funds collected were misappropriated and diverted for personal use, the ED said, including for the purchase of immovable property and for luxury expenses, with the three companies being the vehicles of the offence of money laundering. 'The accused projected the proceeds of crime as untainted by routing funds through multiple bank accounts of themselves as well as the companies owned and controlled by them and using them in sham business activities,' the ED said. Earlier, the ED attached an immovable property pertaining to the accused persons valued at Rs 72 Lakh, located at Gulshan Ikebana, Sector 143, Noida, under the provisions of the PMLA. This attachment was confirmed by the adjudicating authority under the PMLA.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Truck stolen 4 days before policy lapses, forum asks co to pay 75% of insured value
Ghaziabad: The consumer forum granted partial relief to a transporter whose mini truck was stolen just four days before his vehicle insurance was due to expire. In a ruling issued on July 31, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) directed New India Assurance Company to pay 75% of the insured declared value (IDV) and Rs 5,000 in litigation costs and as compensation for the mental agony caused during the prolonged dispute. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now IDV in vehicle insurance is the maximum amount an insurance company must pay out in case of total loss or theft of an insured vehicle and is typically calculated as the vehicle's market value. The petitioner, Lalman Singh, said his Tata 407 pickup truck was insured under a policy valid from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014. On June 26, 2014, just four days before the policy lapsed, the truck was stolen from near his residence in Indirapuram. Singh said that he lodged a police complaint the same day, and an FIR was registered on June 30. Despite submitting a report declaring the vehicle "untraceable", Singh's claim for the full insurance amount of Rs 7.3 lakh was rejected. I nstead, the insurance company released only Rs 5.3 lakh and promised to release the remaining amount later. When the pending amount wasn't paid, Singh approached the consumer forum. New India Assurance argued that the settlement had been completed in line with the policy terms, following an assessment by a certified surveyor. The company's counsel told the commission that Singh had signed a full and final agreement and therefore was not entitled to any further claim. The commission cited a Supreme Court ruling in the 2008 case of National Insurance Company vs Nitin Khandelwal and noted that in cases involving theft, insurance companies were required to pay 75% of the IDV on a non-standard basis, even when procedural lapses exist. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now In Singh's case, this amounted to Rs 5.46 lakh, which was Rs 15,949 short of what was already paid. The commission, led by president Praveen Kumar Jain and members Shailja Sachan and RP Singh, ruled that Singh was entitled to the shortfall in payment. It also took note of the delay and distress caused to the consumer, and ordered the insurance company to pay another Rs 5,000 in compensation. The insurance firm has been given 45 days from the date of the order to comply, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be levied on the unpaid amount.
