In two separate verdicts on suicides, the Supreme Court has once again demonstrated how difficult, and yet how necessary, it is to maintain that fine balance of judgment even in the face of highly emotive issues. Judging the two cases in which husbands and their families were held responsible for the death of the wives, the court held steadfastly that torture in the marital home could not be treated as evidence of abetment to suicide. The rulings are in strict accordance with the letter of the law. The Indian Penal Code treats cruelty and abetment as two independent and different offences under sections 498 (A) and 306 respectively. For cruelty or harassment to qualify as evidence of abetment, there has to be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the act of suicide. In both these cases, this crucial link was absent. Kishori Lal may have mentally harassed his wife for a decade of their married existence, but there is no proof that he instigated his wife to take her life or conspired towards that end. Also in the case of Bhagwan Das, father-in-law of the deceased, this direct correlation was absent. Since both the women took their own lives well beyond seven years of marriage, charges could not have been framed under the dowry-related section 304 (B).

There can be no doubting the judiciary’s concern with expediting the process of justice. But given the Indian reality, a too literal interpretation of the law often makes it difficult to achieve the larger objective of alleviating the sufferings of women, especially those borne in silence within the confines of the home. For example, it would be difficult to strictly differentiate between demands for dowry and those for household expenses, as directed by the apex court in an earlier ruling. What goes on inside the home is not always as apparent as it seems. One cannot disagree with the fact that long-term mental torture leaves permanent scars on the mind. This may or may not culminate in the will to take one’s own life. But the culpability of the people responsible for inflicting this damage cannot be overlooked. This is especially true in cases of suicide, where the dead take their tales with them and there is no way to assess the degree of violence caused to them. The law does take this class of offences seriously, but there are enough loopholes for the guilty to evade justice. Greater sensitivity, both on the part of the judiciary and civic society, can stop this from happening.