Supreme Court: If Breakup or refusal to marriage Ends Up With Suicide, It Cannot Always Be Termed Abetment To Suicide

 That the death was by suicide is unequivocally

proved. It also happened in the house of the 1st appellant.

That the 1st appellant had a consensual relationship with the

deceased for the last few months, is also admitted by the first

informant. In that circumstance, it is not clear as to why the

first informant took away the deceased from the house of the

1st appellant. When a phone call came to the eldest sister

from the deceased, she did not do anything to avert the

suicide threatened. We are unable to find any instigation by

the accused/appellants to drive the deceased to death by

suicide. It was neither intended nor can it be said to be

abetment. At the worst, even if we fully believe what has

been stated by the 1st informant, there was a refusal of

marriage, which led to the woman committing suicide.

People react differently to situations and if a breakup ends up

with suicide, it cannot always be termed an abetment to

suicide. The refusal to marry was not with an intention to

drive the woman to death by suicide nor can knowledge be

attributed to the accused that on such refusal, she would

commit suicide. {Para 6}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7239 of 2026)

Chittibarika Chandra Shekar & Ors. Vs The State of Telangana & Anr. 

Dated: OCTOBER 05, 2026.

Leave granted.

2. The allegation levelled against the six accused, who

are the appellants herein are under Section 306 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It is alleged

that the 1st appellant was in love with the deceased and

though they were not married, they were living together. On

the refusal of the first appellant to marry his lover, she

committed suicide is the case projected by the siblings of the

deceased.

3. The FIR is produced at Annexure P1, registered on the

First Information Statement (FIS) of the sister of the deceased.

It is the case of the 1st informant that she had called up the

friend of the deceased a few days back since her sister was

not picking up her telephone. She was informed that her

sister had been living with the 1st appellant in his house. The

elder sister of the 1st informant then went to the house of the

1st appellant and brought the deceased back to their house.

It is admitted that there was a consensual relationship and

they were living together for three months in the house of the

1st appellant. It is also admitted that their relationship was

accepted by the family of the 1st appellant. In that

circumstance it is difficult to comprehend as to why the 1st

informant and her sister took the deceased away from the 1st

appellant’s house.

4. Be that as it may, the FIS continues with a narration that

on the next day morning the deceased went out to work and

in the evening the 1st appellant called the 1st informant asking

her where to drop her younger sister. She asked the 1st

appellant to bring her back to their house, but the deceased

did not return. Later it is alleged that her sister called up the

eldest sister and told her that the first appellant had refused

to marry him and hence she is ending her life.

5. The 2nd appellant is the father and the 6th appellant is

the mother of the 1st appellant, the 3rd appellant is the sister

of the 1st appellant and the 5th appellant is the person who is

the proposed bridegroom of the 3rd appellant and the 4th

appellant is a friend of the 1st appellant. The allegation is that

the 4th respondent spoke ill of the deceased to the 1st

appellant, which made him withdraw from the marriage

proposal. The 3rd appellant also implored the 1st appellant

from continuing the relationship; especially since the 5th

appellant had refused to marry her, if the 1st appellant

entered into a marriage with the deceased. The 2nd and 6th

appellants, who are the parents of the 1st appellant, also

concurred with this view. This is the long and short of the

instigation to drive the deceased to death by suicide.

6. That the death was by suicide is unequivocally

proved. It also happened in the house of the 1st appellant.

That the 1st appellant had a consensual relationship with the

deceased for the last few months, is also admitted by the first

informant. In that circumstance, it is not clear as to why the

first informant took away the deceased from the house of the

1st appellant. When a phone call came to the eldest sister

from the deceased, she did not do anything to avert the

suicide threatened. We are unable to find any instigation by

the accused/appellants to drive the deceased to death by

suicide. It was neither intended nor can it be said to be

abetment. At the worst, even if we fully believe what has

been stated by the 1st informant, there was a refusal of

marriage, which led to the woman committing suicide.

People react differently to situations and if a breakup ends up

with suicide, it cannot always be termed an abetment to

suicide. The refusal to marry was not with an intention to

drive the woman to death by suicide nor can knowledge be

attributed to the accused that on such refusal, she would

commit suicide.

7. We are unable to sustain the prosecution initiated

against the accused on such frivolous allegations and we

quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No.101 of 2024

pending before the Learned IInd Additional Senior Civil

Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, Telangana.

8. The accused/appellants, if in custody, shall be

released forthwith, if not required in any other case. If they

are already on bail, then their bail bonds shall stand

cancelled.

9. The appeal stands disposed of.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected.

.......…….……………………. J.

(J. B. PARDIWALA)

....……….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 05, 2026.