Before starting the reflective note first, we should look briefly is the Meaning of

word abet- the term 'abet' in general usage means to assist, advance, aid,
conduce, help and promote. The word 'abet' has been defined as meaning to aid,
to assist or to give aid, to command, to procure, or to counsel, to countenance,
to encourage; induce, or assist, to encourage or to set another one to commit any
offence1.

Term abetment is defined in Section 107 of I.P.C. which defines it as, a person
abets the doing of a thing when he:

(i.) Instigates a person to commit an offence

(ii.) Engages with one or more persons in a conspiracy to commit an
offence
(iii.) Intentionally aids a person by any act or illegal omission to
commit an offence or illegally omits the doing of an act which
would prevent the commission of the offence.

For abetment to be a crime there must be a person instigating, provoking,

inducing any other person to commit any offence or to abstain from doing any
lawful act is held guilty of abetment. Here while abetment by instigation there
should be an active instigation, not mere an illogical saying or suggestion, for
example if a persons in rage of anger says go and die, and the other person is
found dead, the person who said those lines will not be held liable for abetment.
The person who did some act should have done it in positive sense, while
abetment by conspiracy it would be abetment only when after conspiracy person
did some act towards that plan. For abetment of aid, it would not amount to it
until that act does not occur, aiding only helps in achieving the goal of that act,
not instigating or conspiring.

1
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Cri LJ 3139
So in this given problem the main cause of death of the married women is, she
committed suicide and the reason of it, in her suicide note she wrote-“I am
insulted and fulfilling the wishes of my husband to leave him. I am leaving the
world forever.” The wish she is mentioning here refers to the words which her
husband said in rage of anger, which was caused by her shameful act only, the
words of her husband were, “I am ashamed of you and your behavior, I wished I
never married you and leave my me and family alone”.

Here the matter comes under Sec 306 of I.P.C., it states that whoever abets the
commission of suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment which can extend
up to 10 years along with fine. But for conviction under this section, the
prosecution must prove2 –

1.) Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or

intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
2.) Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in

committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

3.) It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to
push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

A mere word without necessary intent to incite a person, words uttered in a

quarrel or in a spur of the moment such as “to go and die” cannot be taken to be
uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger or emotion3.

Whereas Sec. 498A of I.P.C. says, husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with

2
S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another (2010 S.C)
3
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618.
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.

But it is difficult to make clear what term cruelty referred in above section
means, for the purpose of this section, cruelty means: -

 any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the

woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb
or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman.

 harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to

coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.

If we take a look into Sec. 113A of I.E.A., it is presumption as to abetment of

suicide by a married woman, when the question is whether the commission of
suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her
husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven
years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her
husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to
all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her
husband or by such relative of her husband. Also, For the purposes of this
section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of I.P.C.

So, after analyzing facts of the case and by applying the essential ingredients of
(Section 306, Section 498A) I.P.C. and Section 113A of I.E.A., it is clear that
Ashok is not liable for the abetment of suicide of Rita. My reasons for the
following conclusion are as follows: -
  The words said by Ashok were simply the outcome of sudden rage of
anger, and were totally not meant to be done in any manner, “A mere
word without necessary intent to incite a person, words uttered in a
quarrel or in a spur of the moment such as “to go and die” cannot be
taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger or emotion”.4
 Also, there was no history of any kind of cruelty over Rita by her
husband and not from Ashok’s family side.

So, he cannot be held liable for the abetment of suicide of Rita.

4
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618.