Forensic Delay and the Duty of the Sessions Court: Judicial Control Over Missing Scientific Reports in Sessions Trials

Delay in receipt of a material scientific report can paralyse a sessions trial, weaken the truth-finding process, and undermine the constitutional expectation of speedy justice. Indian criminal procedure does not contemplate that the court should remain a silent spectator when a forensic report, especially one central to the prosecution case, is withheld or indefinitely delayed. The governing judicial approach is one of active case management: the court must insist on accountability, preserve trial momentum, and ensure that essential scientific evidence is brought on record within a reasonable time.

The doctrinal foundation

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, Creditor making phone call to the debtor for return of his money will not amount to abetment to Suicide?

The only basis on which the charge-sheet has been

laid against the accused is the suicide note

coupled with the call detail records which indicate

that 40 phone calls were made by the appellant to

the deceased in last six months. As far as the

suicide note is concerned, we find that it lacks

material particulars regarding the nature of those

threats and the time and place when those threats

were extended. Moreover, the suicide note indicts

as many as 9 accused without specifying the role of

any one of them. It is not the case of the

prosecution that all accused belong to one family

or were harassing the deceased as a group. Further,

the deceased has painted all creditors with one

brush. Therefore, a trial based on such a suicide

note would be a futile exercise. Besides, if a

creditor makes a phone call to the debtor for

return of his money that being a lawful act, it

cannot on its own constitute a ground to prosecute

the creditor. Moreover, the deceased may have

committed suicide on account of depression for not

being able to clear of the debt.

14. In such circumstances, particularly when

there is no material to indicate that the deceased

was beaten or physically assaulted to return the

dues, we are of the view that there is hardly any

material on basis whereof it could be inferred that

the appellant by demanding his dues abetted

commission of suicide by the deceased. In our view,

therefore, the continuance of the proceedings

against the appellant would be a futile exercise

and would amount to abuse of the process of the

Court. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it is

necessary that the same be quashed.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No(s). /2026

SLP (Crl.) No(s). 4644/2025

DHIRUBHAI NANJIBHAI PATEL LOTWALA  Vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 

Dated: March 10, 2026

Print Page

From Suspicion to Suicide: Unraveling Third-Party Liability in Marital Tragedies – A Legal Deep Dive

The Village Drama That Ended in Tragedy

In a quiet Indian village, a simple conversation between a wife and her co-villager spiraled into suspicion. The husband, troubled by what he perceived as evidence of an extramarital affair, found himself confronting not just his wife, but the co-villager as well. Tempers flared, quarrels ensued, and, overwhelmed by emotion and suspicion, the husband consumed poison—ending his own life.

Can the third person—the co-villager—be held criminally responsible for abetment of suicide under Indian law?

Decoding the Legal Labyrinth: What Does the Law Say?

Print Page

When Love Turns Lethal: The Legal Tightrope of Abetment to Suicide in Marital Disputes

 The Case That Reveals Complex Legal Realities

In the tragic intersection of domestic conflict and criminal law, a deeply disturbing case unfolds that challenges our understanding of legal culpability and human nature. A wife, overwhelmed by marital discord and harassment over giving birth to three daughters, threatens suicide. Her husband's chilling response: "If you commit suicide, I will be free to perform a second marriage." When she tragically follows through, burning herself alive, the question becomes not just moral but legal—can the husband be held criminally liable for abetment of suicide?

Print Page

The Non-Collection of Call Detail Records: Implications for Testimony in Legal Proceedings

 The non-collection of Call Detail Records (CDR) can significantly impact the testimony of the deceased's parents in a case where the prosecution relies on telephonic communication as the primary evidence of ill-treatment for the following reasons:

1. Burden of Proof

The prosecution bears the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of CDR, it becomes challenging to substantiate the claims made by the deceased's parents regarding telephonic communication. 

 2. Materiality of CDR

Print Page

Supreme Court: Mere Scolding Of Student is Not Abetment Of Suicide

Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find

it a fit case for interference. As has rightly been submitted

by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, no normal person

could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a

complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to

the student so scolded taking his own life. Further, as

submitted, such scolding was the least, a correspondent was

required to do, to ensure that the complaint made against the

deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial

measures effected. In the considered opinion of this Court,

under such admitted factual position, no mens rea can be

attributed to the appellant much less, with regard to

abatement of suicide committed by the deceased. {Para 8}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.9099 OF 2024

THANGAVEL   Vs THE STATE, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. 

Dated: MAY 22, 2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court must draw presumption under S 113A of Evidence Act if there is no cogent evidence as regards cruelty & harassment

The law as regards the abetment of suicide punishable Under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code is now well settled. It appears that the Courts below laid much emphasis on Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, "the Evidence Act"). Sections 113A {S 117 of BSA} & 113B of the Evidence Act {S 118 of BSA} talks about presumption. Sections 113A {S 117 of BSA} and 113B {S 118 of BSA}respectively read thus:{Para 12}

113A. {S 117 of BSA} 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.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

113B.{S 118 of BSA} Presumption as to dowry death.- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

13. It is relevant to note that Under Section 113B {S 118 of BSA}, the Court shall presume dowry death unlike Section 113A {S 117 of BSA} where the provision says that Court may presume abetment of suicide. This is the vital difference between the two provisions which raises presumption as regards abetment of suicide. When the Courts below want to apply Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards cruelty & harassment. In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightway invoke Section 113A and presume that the Accused abetted the commission of suicide.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015

Decided On: 09.01.2025

Ram Pyarey Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Citation: 2025 INSC 71,MANU/SC/0074/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Abetment Of Suicide' Offence Can't Be Invoked Only To Assuage Feelings Of Family

Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2025

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 11868 OF 2023)

MAHENDRA AWASE  Vs  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Dated: 17th January, 2025.

Citation:2025 INSC 76.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The appellate court while confirming the conviction is also expected to get satisfied on the adequacy and sufficiency of sentence awarded by trial court

To sum up, for above reasons, only charge of Section 498-A IPC stands proved but only against surviving appellant father-in-law. Learned trial court has sentenced him under Section 498-A IPC to suffer imprisonment for two years. However, as stated above, only allegation which stand substantiated is regarding beating. For his such act, sentence of two years appears to be on higher side. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023 in the case of Right to Privacy of adolescents with Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2024, the appellate court while confirming the conviction is also expected to get satisfied on the adequacy and sufficiency of sentence awarded by trial court. {Para 29}

30. Learned counsel submitted that appellant is over 70 years of age. On visiting the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Court, it is evidence that at that time appellant was 57 years of age, and hence there is reason to hold that as on today, he is more than 70 years old. Therefore, in view of above discussion and also taking into account that the episode in question had taken place almost two decades back and appellant as on today is reported to be over 70 years of age, keeping in mind the sentencing policy that sentence should commensurate with the gravity of the act, the sentence from two years is required to be scaled down.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 2005

Decided On: 28.11.2024

Prabhakar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

 Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:27774, MANU/MH/7154/2024.

Print Page

What essential facts the prosecution must prove for proving an offence U/S 306 of IPC?

 CHARGE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC :

In Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of Police, MANU/SC/1310/2022 : 2022:INSC:1073, after referring to the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :

"44 It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."

In Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0187/2023, it is observed that to bring the case within the purview of 'Abetment' under Section 107 of IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 of IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.

In very recent case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0146/2024 : 2024:INSC:149 : 2024 DGLS (SC) 224/(2024) 3 SCC 573 it is observed that, had there been any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on account of which the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to her life, it could have been said that the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide. A person intends a consequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and (2) desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test)."

In another recent case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 01.03.2024], following observations are made :

"39. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan MANU/SC/0161/2011 : 2011:INSC:168 : (2011) 3 SCC 626, this Court observed that abetment would involve a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Delineating the intention of the legislature and having regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this Court, it was concluded that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

25. On re-appreciating evidence in this context, it is emerging that, PW2 Shiwaji who had been to fetch deceased returned without her on 19.02.2002. Deceased allegedly met father on 03.03.2002 and reported that ill treatment and harassment to be aggravated. Again no specifications or details as to in what form was the ill treatment and at whose hands has not come on record. Thus, allegations are omnibus. Even, there is no reference in this regards in the alleged letters authored by deceased. Deceased suffered burns on 09.03.2002. There is a gap of almost a month or so, since deceased met father on 19.02.2002. There is total vacuum from 19.02.2002 up to 09.03.2002. It is pertinent to note that, deceased herself has conveyed in the letter that mother-in-law would send her after 9th month of pregnancy. Such material indicates that it is not so as claimed by prosecution that, deceased was not to be send unless their demand is met. Consequently, what exactly happened on or in proximity to 09.03.2002 is not coming on record. Unless there is evidence suggesting positive and active participation by husband and other in-laws in abetting, instigating or inciting deceased to end up her life or that they desired that she should commit suicide and with such sole intention they maltreated her; or there was creation of such circumstances by them, due to which deceased was left with no other alternative but to end up her life, charge of section 306 of IPC cannot be said to be made out. More particularly, in the backdrop of legal requirements spelt out in the above reproduced numerous judicial pronouncements, here there is no live-link in proximity to suicide to connect either husband or in-laws. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, as essential ingredients for attracting section 306 of IPC, not being available, it is unsafe to attribute suicide to any of the accused including husband.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

Satish Bhagwan Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence when prosecution put forth the case that wife was pregnant when she has committed Suicide?

 Here while advancing submissions, learned APP fairly pointed out that prosecution's evidence in trial court does not show deceased Manisha to be pregnant. Therefore, at the threshold it is required to be ascertained as to whether it is so. It assumes significance because very prosecution version is that deceased was not sent for delivery unless their alleged demand was met. {Para 9}

10. In above backdrop, it has become imperative for this court to first study the evidence in that regard and for the same evidence of medico - legal expert, i.e. PW8 Dr. Kiran Patil is required to be visited. His evidence at Exh.74. While under examination-in- chief deposed about conducting post mortem (Exh.41) and testifying about contents therein to be true and correct. He deposed that, if a lady was carrying pregnancy is ablazed and if she sustains burns, she could get aborted because of such burns, immediately.

However, while under cross at the hands of defence, he answered that, on the basis of post mortem report, it is his say that, the patient Manisha was not carrying pregnancy.

11. Apart from above evidence, if we visit post mortem report (Exh.41), in paragraph no.21 as regards to organs of generation and state of contents of stomach, remark is "uterus empty". In trial court, Exh.40 is finding place which is certificate issued by autopsy surgeon in response to letter dated 08.08.2002 communicating that "as per your letter received on 08.08.2002 in 462/2002, PM No.152 OF 2002 Manisha @ Munni Satish Patil A/P Jamod was found not pregnant, "uterus empty" at P.M. and final cause of death is "shock due to 100% mixed thermal burns."

PW4 Shobha, a nurse, who is also examined by prosecution to show that deceased was pregnant and accordingly card (Exh.57) was issued by Primary Health Centre, in examination- in-chief, stated that, deceased was examined in "Shibir" (Health Camp). That, her mother-in-law had informed that, her menstruation cycle had stopped. Witness stated that, on examining Manisha, she found her to be carrying pregnancy, but while under cross she answered that, she has studied up to 12th standard. She answered that, after putting her palm on the stomach of Manisha, she could "guess" that she was carrying pregnancy. She admitted that, when pregnant woman expires, autopsy is conducted, then there must be mentioned the fact of pregnancy in post mortem report. She further answered that, she did not make enquiry with Manisha whether she was prescribed any medicine by any doctor. She answered that, as her belly was found in bigger size, she deposed that, she was pregnant. She also answered that, she has not brought a book carrying record of issuance of card.

12. Taking into account above discussed material on behalf of very prosecution, here there are serious doubts about alleged pregnancy of deceased Manisha. More particularly, autopsy surgeon has in writing as well as before the court, admitted that, uterus was empty. Meaning thereby, there was no fetus and as such no pregnancy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

Satish Bhagwan Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether demand of articles towards customary rituals amounts to Dowry demand attracting prosecution U/S 498A of IPC?

 Learned counsel for appellants would submit that, whatever allegations are made about demand, is not illegal demand towards any dowry. According to him, demand was towards customary rituals which are acknowledged in the community. Hence, according to him, rigors of section 498-A of IPC would not be attracted. {Para 20}

21. Here, father and uncle of deceased have both deposed about demand of "Mul". As stated above, learned APP herself clarified that, when newly wedded bride visits her parent's place for the first time or during first visit after conception and delivery, there is a custom of giving articles. Informant narrated that on 19.02.2002, his brother PW2 Shiwaji was sent to fetch deceased, but she was not allowed to go, saying that, said customary 'Mul' is not given.

22. Though above demand of articles is customary, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in MANU/SC/0210/2015 : 2015:INSC:161 : AIR 2015 SC 1359, observed that, any demand made by husband or his relatives before, during or after the marriage are considered as a dowry. This view is again reiterated in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0027/2022 : 2022:INSC:30 : (2022) 5 SCC 401.

In view of above, though demands are termed as 'customary' in view of above ruling, every demand is to be held as dowry demand.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

Satish Bhagwan Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: In-laws of wife should not be prosecuted for an offence U/S 498A of IPC based on general, sweeping and omnibus allegations without giving specific role and distinct allegation

As regards to other accused i.e. brothers-in-law are concerned, as discussed above, there are general and omnibus allegations. Apparently, allegations are directed against husband for beating, though on instigation of mother-in-law. However, it is pertinent to note that, at the time of judgment, age of accused Vijay is noted as 19 years. Judgment is passed on 17.06.2004. FIR is of 10.03.2002. This shows that, on the day of occurrence, accused Vijay was merely 17 years of age and thus a minor. It is also emerging that accused no.5 Kailas @ Diwanj was resident of Nashik. Informant has admitted that, he had shifted there since 10 to 15 years. However, though he has volunteered that he used to visit Jamod intermittently, specific visits are not coming on record. Therefore, as regards to allegations against both brothers-in-law are concerned, there are omnibus allegations about instigation. Even as against mother-in-law allegations are non specific except stating that she instigated.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the very recent case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others; MANU/SC/0163/2022 : 2022:INSC:163 : (2022) 6 SCC 599, observed that, general, sweeping and omnibus allegations without giving specific role and distinct allegation does not warrant prosecution itself. 

{Para 19}

23. Consequently, here, role of husband alone is getting crystallized. Though there are three letters (Exh.44, 45, and 46) as regards to maltreatment is concerned, only Exh.44 carries material regarding conduct of accused husband and mother-in-law. Allegations against mother-in-law is coming to the extent of instigation, but for what is not clear. Therefore, there is no convincing evidence as regards to section 498-A is concerned against both, brothers-in-law as well as mother-in-law and as such it would be unjust and improper to involve brothers-in-law and mother-in-law by invoking section 34 of IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

Satish Bhagwan Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Prosecution must prove recovery of the trace of poison consumed by or administered to the deceased to prove the offence of homicide or suicide

Non-recovery of trace of poison (pesticide)

41. There is one more aspect in this case. In a case of death due to consumption or administering of poison or insecticide or pesticide, be it homicidal or suicidal, recovery of the trace of such poison or insecticide or pesticide is crucial.

46. In this case, the doctors who had treated the deceased in the first nursing home and later on in the Mission Hospital, were not examined by the police. They were also not summoned as court witnesses. Their testimony could have been crucial. They could have thrown light into the nature of intake of the Organophosphate compound: whether by way of injection or consumed orally? Whether they could detect the smell of Organophosphate compound emanating from the patient? This serious lacuna is further compounded by the fact that the prosecution had failed to recover any syringe or needle from the crime scene. No container or bottle containing the pesticide were also recovered from the room where the deceased was found lying on the floor or in any part of the house. There is no evidence to suggest that police had made an endeavour to search for such container or bottle. If the deceased had injected the poison herself, considering the multiple injection marks over the front of both the elbows, then the syringe and the needle would have been there, in and around her. If she had orally consumed the poison, then also the bottle or the container of the poison would have been present in the crime scene or near about. There is absolutely no evidence in this regard. There is also no evidence to show as to how the deceased had acquired the pesticide. In addition to non-recovery of the syringe or the needle or the container, the police were unable to show the source from where the particular pesticide was obtained by the deceased. If the prosecution case is to be believed, then the syringe and the needle or the container must have been present in the scene of occurrence itself. Those were not found by the prosecution. Neither any trace of pesticide was seen by the investigating officer in the room. The FSL report as well as the chemical analysis report are silent as to whether any trace of the pesticide was detected from any of the seized articles. Prosecution is silent as to why no investigation was done in this regard. In a case of this nature, where the oral evidence including that of PW Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are not at all convincing, the absence of the container or the bottle containing the pesticide from where the deceased had orally consumed the pesticide, becomes very crucial. Similarly, recovery of syringe and needle if the deceased had injected the poison, is also crucial. As a general principle, it can be said that in a case of death by poisoning, be it homicidal or suicidal and which is based on circumstantial evidence, recovery of the trace of poison consumed by or administered to the deceased is of critical importance. It forms a part of the chain; rather it would complete the chain to prove homicide or suicide.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011

Decided On: 01.03.2024

Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Citation: 2024:INSC:156:[2024]3S.C.R. 329,MANU/HP/1742/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court judgment under S 306 of IPC regarding abetment of suicide

Relevant legal provisions

31. In India attempt to commit suicide is an offence Under Section 309 Indian Penal Code. This Section provides that whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But once the suicide is carried out i.e., the offence is complete, then obviously such a person would be beyond the reach of the law; question of penalising him would not arise. In such a case, whoever abets the commission of such suicide would be penalised Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. Section 306 Indian Penal Code reads as under:

306. Abetment of suicide- if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

31.1. Thus, as per Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, if any person commits suicide, then whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

32. The crucial word in Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is 'abets'. 'Abetment' is defined in Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code reads thus:

107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

32.1. From a reading of Section 107 Indian Penal Code what is deducible is that a person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing or if he encourages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission doing of that thing. Explanation 1 clarifies that even if a person by way of wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact which he is otherwise bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Similarly, it is clarified by way of Explanation-2 that whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission of an act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Case law

33. Suicide is distinguishable from homicide inasmuch as it amounts to killing of self. This Court in M. Mohan v. State   MANU/SC/0161/2011 : 2011:INSC:168 : (2011) 3 SCC 626 went into the meaning of the word suicide and held as under:

37. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self" and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.

34.1. Thus, this Court held that to 'instigate' means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of 'instigation', it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. But, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the Accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

35. Again in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State   MANU/SC/1453/2009 : 2009:INSC:1040 : (2009) 16 SCC 605, this Court elaborated further and observed that to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. 

35.1. Thus, this Court has held that in order to prove that the Accused had abetted the commission of suicide by a person, the following has to be established:

(i) the Accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and

(ii) that the Accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.

36. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal   MANU/SC/1808/2009 : 2009:INSC:1228 : (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court after referring to some of the previous decisions held that it has been the consistent view that before holding an Accused guilty of an offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative to put an end to her life. It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the Accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code would not be sustainable. Thereafter, this Court held as under:

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 Indian Penal Code there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.

38. In Rajesh v. State of Haryana   MANU/SC/0047/2019 : 2019:INSC:60 : (2020) 15 SCC 359, this Court after referring to Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code held as follows:

9. Conviction Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the Accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 Indian Penal Code, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.

39. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (supra), this Court observed that abetment would involve a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the Accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Delineating the intention of the legislature and having regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this Court, it was concluded that in order to convict a person Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the Accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

40. Sounding a note of caution, this Court in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal   MANU/SC/0321/1994 : 1993:INSC:307 : (1994) 1 SCC 73 observed that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the Accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011

Decided On: 01.03.2024

Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Citation: 2024:INSC:156:[2024]3S.C.R. 329,MANU/HP/1742/2024.

Print Page

What facts are to be proved for convicting an accused for an offence U/S 306 of IPC for abetment of suicide?

 To secure a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish several critical elements. Below are the essential facts required for conviction, along with relevant judicial precedents.

Key Elements for Conviction Under Section 306 IPC

The following elements must be proven:

- Abetment: The accused must have actively abetted, aided, or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. This can include actions that create a situation compelling the victim to take their own life.

- Mens Rea: There must be a clear intention (mens rea) on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in the act of suicide. This means that the accused's actions should demonstrate a deliberate intention to push the deceased towards committing suicide.

Print Page

Under which circumstance the court can convict accused for offences U/S 498A and S 306 of IPC even though accused were not charged under those sections?

 Omission to frame charge does not disable the court from convicting the Accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The code has ample provisions to meet a situation like the one before us. From the statement of charge framed Under Section 304B and in the alternative Section 306, it is clear that all the facts and ingredients for framing the charge for offence Under Section 306 existed. The mere omission on the part of the trial judge to mention Section 306 Indian Penal Code with 498A would not preclude this Court from convicting the Accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed Under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, it has been clearly mentioned that the Accused has subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit suicide by self-immolation and as such non-framing of the specific charge would not be fatal in the instant case as no injustice is being caused to the Accused. {Para 28}

29. This Court in K. Prema S. Rao and Anr. v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Ors. MANU/SC/0890/2002 : (2003) 1 SCC 217 has held that mere omission or defect in framing of charge would not be fatal if from the statement of charge Under Section 304B and in the alternative Section 498A, it is clear that all facts and ingredients for framing of charge Under Section 306 existed in the case, same would suffice. It was further held that:

22. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the criminal court from convicting the Accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet a situation like the one before us. From the statement of charge framed Under Section 304-B and in the alternative Section 498-A Indian Penal Code (as quoted above) it is clear that all facts and ingredients for framing charge for offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Section 306 Indian Penal Code with Section 498-A Indian Penal Code does not preclude the court from convicting the Accused for the said offence when found proved. In the alternate charge framed Under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, it has been clearly mentioned that the Accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit suicide. The provisions of Section 221 Code of Criminal Procedure take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of the criminal court to convict an Accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Section 221 Code of Criminal Procedure needs reproduction:

221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed.-(1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the Accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences.

(2) If in such a case the Accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of Sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.

23. The provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 221 read with Sub-section (1) of the said Section can be taken aid of in convicting and sentencing Accused 1 of offence of abetment of suicide Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code along with or instead of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code.

24. Section 215 allows the criminal court to ignore any error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, if the Accused was not, in fact, misled by such error or omission in framing the charge and it has not occasioned a failure of justice. See Section 215 Code of Criminal Procedure which reads:

215. Effect of errors.-No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the Accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.

25. As provided in Section 215 Code of Criminal Procedure omission to frame charge Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code has not resulted in any failure of justice. We find no necessity to remit the matter to the trial court for framing charge Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and direct a retrial for that charge. The Accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence, which justify conviction of the Appellant Under Section 498-A for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code of having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. The Appellant was charged for an offence of higher degree causing "dowry death" Under Section 304-B which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment and maximum for life. Presumption Under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty Under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. No further opportunity of defence is required to be granted to the Appellant when he had ample opportunity to meet the charge Under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code.

30. In the aforesaid background and the evidence on record as already noticed by us hereinabove, it can be safely noted that High Court ought to have examined as to whether Accused could have been convicted for an offence for which no charge was framed and not undertaking of such an exercise would result in failure of justice? Thus, it will have to be seen from the facts unfolded in the present case as to whether the Accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which they are being tried and whether the main facts sought to be established against them were explained to them clearly and whether they got a fair chance to defend themselves. If the answer is in the affirmative, then necessarily this Court will have to proceed further and examine as to whether Accused can be convicted for the offence not charged and if the answer is in the negative it would result in acquittal of the Accused for said offence. In the instant case the dying declaration of the deceased would clearly indicate that deceased was mentally traumatized and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the Accused person on account of which she committed suicide. It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by self- immolation. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that Accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code though charge was not framed. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3274 of 2023 

Decided On: 19.10.2023

Paranagouda and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Author: Aravind Kumar, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1171/2023.

Print Page