No ‘guilty mind’, no crime: Why Gujarat High Court quashed this dowry suicide case

Advocate Medha Pandya, appearing for the applicants, had submitted to the court that the parents of the deceased woman and the accused-applicants had arrived at a settlement and that the mother of the deceased had also filed an affidavit in support of the submissions made by the applicants.

The common oral order of the court, pronounced earlier in January this year, stated, “It is settled that to attract Section 107 of the IPC, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in proximity to the act of committing suicide.”

The court noted the submissions of the applicant-accused, stating, “…it prima facie appears that the deceased was suffering from mental illness and was undertaking treatment since 2013 (i.e. before her marriage…). Further, it appears from the medical evidence on record as well as the statements of the parents of the deceased recorded by the police and the affidavits filed by them, that the deceased was having a tendency to commit suicide, due to which, she had even tried to commit suicide either by consuming poisonous liquid or jumping into the river…”

The court also considered the submissions that both parents of the deceased had “admitted that even before her marriage, the deceased had attempted to commit suicide twice…” and the mother of the deceased filed an affidavit dated December 22, 2025, stating that they did not want to continue with the FIR.

The court also noted that there was “no evidence on record to suggest as to what had happened soon before the incident” as the deceased had been living at her parental house in the preceding ten months due to a discord with her husband and had taken the extreme step at her parental home and her parents had “not supported the version narrated by the deceased” in the FIR.

Background

As per the now quashed FIR, the marriage of the deceased woman and her husband was solemnised in November 2021 and “soon after the marriage, the present applicants-accused used to taunt the deceased regarding her medical expenditure and were demanding dowry, therefore, the deceased had once consumed poisonous liquid”.

The applicants had also informed the court that, following the intervention of some “members of the society”, the woman had returned to her matrimonial home, and the couple had welcomed a son, now aged 1.5 years.

On January 19, 2024, the woman had consumed acid at her parental home, where she had been residing for over ten months after a discord with her husband and in-laws. The deceased had succumbed on January 22 at a hospital in Surat, where she was undergoing treatment.
—-