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

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: 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

Is it possible to frame a charge against accused for abetment of suicide and in the alternative for committing murder?

   Here in this case, learned Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC and in alternative under Section 306. Insofar as alternative charge under Section 306 is concerned; it may be stated that offence under Section 302 and Section 306 are distinct. Its ingredients are altogether different. The framing of charge under Section 302, and in alternative under Section 306 is not permissible inasmuch as when there is doubt as to facts, Section 221 of Cr.P.C. has no application. In the case of Prasoon Gupta and Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. 2010 SCC OnLine All 1887; the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the question framing of charge in alternative can arise, when there is no doubt about the facts, which can be proved but doubt is as to what offence will be constituted on those facts. It is not permissible in law, to frame a charge for accused having abetted the suicide and a charge in alternative of murder, as it shows doubt as to facts. The offence under Sections 306 and 302 are diametrically opposed to each other. The ingredients of two Sections are different, the framing of the charge in alternative charge under Section 302 as directed, is likely to prejudice the accused Applicants. {Para 7}

12. Undoubtedly, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prasoon Gupta (supra) and in consideration of the facts of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have frame the charge under Section 302 and alternative the charge under Section 306 of IPC. Thus, the order to the extent framing the charge alternatively under Section 306 of IPC against the accused No. 1 and 2 is quashed and set aside. Only to this extent, the application is allowed. Needless to say that Prosecution shall proceed to try the Applicants for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Bombay High Court

JUSTICE SANDEEP K. SHINDE

Sabirabano Yusuf Sayyad & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Criminal Application (APL) No. 125 / 2020

24th November 2021

Citation: 2021 NearLaw (BombayHC) Online 2189

Print Page

Whether an offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against accused if there was quarrel on the day of suicide?

 Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, 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 instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu Pal (supra), mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.

9.1 Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment. There is no material on record that the appellant-accused played an active role by an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case, even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and consumed pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no other material on record which indicates abetment, both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

Supreme Court

JUSTICE M.R. Shah JUSTICE Aniruddha Bose

Velladurai Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 953 OF 2021

14th September 2021

Author: M.R. SHAH, J.

Citation: 2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 441

Print Page

Whether the court can hold an accused guilty for an offence U/S 306 of IPC if the prosecution fails to prove any positive act of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide?

Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in

a case where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide

and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the

person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence

under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide.

Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306

IPC, 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 instigating or by

doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As observed

and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu Pal (supra), mere

harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused

proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.

9.1 Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment. There is no material on record that the appellant-accused played an active role by an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case, even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and consumed pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no other material on record which indicates abetment, both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 953 OF 2021

Velladurai  Vs   State 

Author: M.R. SHAH, J.

Dated: September 14, 2021.

Print Page

Whether court should suspend sentence of parents of husband for suicide of wife if they were residing separately?

 It is to be noted that nowadays the commitment of suicide by women, due to dowry harassment, are rising day by day. On the other hand, the in-laws are escaping from their liability saying that they are not living with their son, even though they are living separately, but, they are inducing their son for getting dowry, by way of, money, jewels, two wheeler, car etc., It is also to be noted that since the in-laws are not residing with their son and the victim women, and on that ground, they are seeking suspension of sentence, and this Court has also considered several petitions, on such ground. Taking advantage of that, a wrong message has gone to the Society that the parents can easily

escape from their liability and the alleged offence. It is to be further noted that mere giving a birth to a child, and providing shelter and good education, and motivating their child to get a job alone is not enough, and the first and foremost responsibility of the parents is that they should groom their children as responsible citizens.  {Para 6}

7. From the materials available on record, there are materials against the petitioners / accused 2 and 3 also, and the learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of materials available on record against the petitioners / accused 2 and 3, convicted them for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, and acquitted

them of the charge under Section 304-B of IPC.

8. Given the nature and gravity of offence committed by the accused, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence. Finding no merits, this miscellaneous petition shall stand dismissed.

MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Crl.M.P.No.2926 of 2021 in

Crl.A.No.114 of 2021

CORAM: P.VELMURUGAN, J.

Dated; 29.03.2021

Print Page

Whether court can quash prosecution for abetment of suicide if suicide note bears name of accused?

We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first Respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first Respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against first Respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first Respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the Respondent.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2018 

Decided On: 28.11.2018

 Narayan Malhari Thorat  Vs.  Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

U.U. Lalit and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/1355/2018

Print Page

Whether father can be held guilty for abetment of suicide of son if father is drunkard?

 In Father Peter Paul Antony Vs. State of Maharashtra,

reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 3429, in paragraph nos. 20 and

21, this Court observed thus:

“20. In the light of above facts and settled legal

position, it is noted that even if a person would

commit suicide because of certain acts of the accused,

the accused cannot be said to have committed

abetment of suicide by the deceased unless the

accused would intend, while causing such acts to the

victim, that he/she should commit suicide. As such, it

is necessary for the prosecution to establish that by his

acts, the applicant/accused could reasonably foresee

that because of his conduct, the victim was almost

certain or at least, quite likely to commit suicide.

Unless this is established, a person cannot be charged

of having abetted commission of suicide, even if,

suicide has been committed as a result of some of the

acts committed by the accused.

In the case of Sanju (supra), it is seen that

even in the case where the accused had uttered words

such as "go and die" in abusive and humiliating

language which, allegedly, led to committing of

suicide, it was held that it would not amount to

instigation and consequently, there would be no

offence of abetment of suicide.

21. In the application on hand, there is

absolutely no evidence to establish that on the day of

incident or immediately prior to the deceased

committing suicide, applicant has instigated or

abetted deceased to commit the same. In that view of

the matter, applicant cannot be attributed the

requisite mens rea so as to hold him guilty as abettor.

This appears to be fundamental defect in the case of

prosecution and it does not spell out any offence

punishable under Section 305 of Indian Penal Code.

19. Thus, I am of the view that the deceased was not

denied any basic amenities to his life by the appellant. Further,

though it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased used to

prosecute his studies, there is nothing brought on record to show

that at any point of time, the deceased was declared unsuccessful

in any of his academic year. In the light of evidence of Hemant

(PW4) and Pooja (PW2), it is clear that there was no objection for

the deceased even to withdraw huge amounts from the account of

appellant by using ATM though the deceased, who was only in the

9th standard. Not only that, this evidence would show that the

deceased was also permitted to retain an amount of Rs.1,000/-

and looking to his age, in my view, it is a very huge amount. The

admitted position also speaks that the mother of the deceased was

a psychic patient having nothing to do with drinking of the

appellant. Therefore, he used to be always under depressed

condition. Different persons may react differently to the same

situation. Therefore, merely because the deceased by writing a

note mentioning about the drinking habit of his father and

committed suicide, in my view, it cannot be treated as an

abetment, especially when the prosecution evidence falls short to

show that there used to be ill treatment at the hands of the

appellant under the influence of liquor to the deceased so as to

drive the deceased to take the extreme step of his life.

In my view, the learned Judge of the Court below has

swayed away with the fact that the deceased boy was required to

commit suicide for an admitted position that the appellant was a

drunkard. Merely drinking can never be an abetment for a person

to commit suicide.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.391/2015

Ramrao Kisan Rathod, Vs State of Maharashtra 

CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- 04.01.2020.

Print Page

Whether husband and his relatives can be convicted for abetment of suicide of wife if they are acquitted in offence U/S 498A of IPC?

This Court in an illuminating judgment in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh MANU/SC/0654/2001 : (2001) 9 SCC 618 has stated the law as follows:

This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to anyone outside the occupants of the house. However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the Accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression "may presume" suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to have regard to "all the other circumstances of the case". A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression-"the other circumstances of the case" used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase "may presume" used in Section 113-A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says-"Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.

8. We find that having absolved the Appellants of the charge of cruelty, which is the most basic ingredient for the offence made out Under Section 498A, the third ingredient for application of Section 113A is missing, namely, that the relatives i.e., the mother-in-law and father-in-law who are charged Under Section 306 had subjected the victim to cruelty. No doubt, in the facts of this case, it has been concurrently found that the in-laws did harass her, but harassment is something of a lesser degree than cruelty. Also, we find on the facts, taken as a whole, that assuming the presumption Under Section 113A would apply, it has been fully rebutted, for the reason that there is no link or intention on the part of the in-laws to assist the victim to commit suicide.

9. In the absence of this vital link, the mere fact that there is a finding of harassment would not lead to the conclusion that there is "abetment of suicide".

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 790/2017 

Decided On: 24.04.2017

 Heera Lal  Vs.  State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohinton Fali Nariman and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.

Print Page

Whether a woman can be prosecuted for abetment of suicide of her husband if she has phone sex with friend of husband?

The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mundargi has made out a
point that this communication was secretly done. It is true that this
fact is crucial and has direct bearing on deciding whether this Act
can be called as an abetment. Undoubtedly, this communication
was clandestinely done with a view that it should not be known to
the deceased. This was very private and in a way immoral
behaviour of the accused. Such phone sex or chatting is not an
adultery falling under the definition of adultery under section 13(1)
of Hindu Marriage Act, which expressly states that adultery means
having voluntary sexual intercourse with person other than spouse.
Thus, when the Indian Penal Code or Hindu Marriage Act were
enacted in those days, such kind of sexual intercourse by SMSs
was never imagined by the law makers. It is not an adultery but
these are instances of infidelity and unfaithfulness, which is not
expected when the marriage is solemnised. Such acts of infidelity
are bound to cause emotional trauma to the spouse, who may
react by taking extreme step like suicide. Thus, in the
circumstances like a case in hand, the spouse who indulges into
such activity is responsible for reaction of the other spouse.

18. Thus, when one partner does such activity clandestinely,
then it pre-supposes guilty mind. However, such an act or guilty
mind cannot be substituted for mens rea which is the requirement
for abetment under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The
intention of the partner who is engaged into such phone sex or
causing ill-treatment should be, that the other spouse should finish
his or her life. For example, if at all, the applicant/accused would
have indulged into phone sex deliberately disclosing this
repeatedly to the deceased albeit warning given by the deceased
of discontinuing such activity, it would have been considered a
planned harassment to the deceased and therefore, such
repeated, deliberate sexual SMSs would have manifested the
intention to drive the victim to the decision of committing suicide.
The guilty mind is to be necessarily linked with infidelity but not
abetment to commit suicide. It is not the case of the prosecution
in the present case. No such material is produced on record in the
present case. To commit suicide is a very unfortunate reaction of
the accused, who was deeply hurt. It was beyond his capacity to
bear such behaviour of his wife. However, this also cannot be said
that the applicant abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.57 OF 2018
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.435 OF 2018
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPL

ICATION NO.57 OF 2018

Anagha Hitesh Arya Vs. The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

Dated: DECEMBER 14, 2018

Print Page

Whether distant relatives of husband can be prosecuted for abetment of suicide of wife?

The said judgments make it clear that when
members of the family of in-laws are not
residing together with the victim and her
husband and if there is no direct allegations
against them regarding ill-treatment by them,
and when they have never lived with the
victim or when there is no evidence regarding
their visit to the place when the incident
had taken place, the complaint is to be
treated as nothing but means to harass and
humiliate husband’s relatives and thereby,
permitting such complainant to pursue the
complaint, would be an abuse of process of
law. Serious observations are made by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti
Gupta (supra), which need not be reproduced
in all such cases, whereas in the case of
Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has categorically confirmed
that casual reference of some relatives in
FIR or other statements are not sufficient to

take cognizance against all such family
members. Therefore, in such case,
practically, Supreme Court has to circulate
copy of the judgment to the Law Commission
and the Central Government to do the needful
and advice the investigating agency not to
include all the family members as accused.
10. Whereas, in the case of Arnesh Kumar
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
has categorically stated that police officers
should not harass family members or
automatically arrest and should not
mechanically reproduce all the statements.
11. Whereas in the case of Kans Raj, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has stated
that overt acts attributed to the relatives
of the victim should be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 190 of 2016


MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH

SAVITABEN MANILAL NAYAK & 3.
V
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
 Date : 29/06/2016.
Citation:2017 CRLJ(NOC)115 Guj

Print Page

Whether accused can be held guilty for abetment of suicide if he has outraged modesty of lady victim?

Looking to the clear evidence available that the victim
ran inside and committed suicide, the question before me is
whether it could be said that the prosecution proved abetment to
commit suicide.
19. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant
referred to the case of M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by

the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in AIR 2011
SC 1238 to submit that, for abetment to commit suicide, there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence of abetting the
victim to commit suicide. Reliance was also placed on the
judgment in the matter of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of
A.P. reported in AIR 2010 SC 327 and it has been argued that,
for abetment, instigating or intentional aiding the person to
commit the act of suicide has to be established. Paras 18, 20
and 21 of the judgment need to be reproduced.
"18. In the instant case, the deceased was
undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and differences which happen
in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of
each individual differs from the other. Different
people behave differently in the same situation.

20. Abetment involves 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.
21. The intention of the Legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear
that in order to convict a person under Section
306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It also requires an active
act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and this act
must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicide."

20. Keeping the above observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in view, it would be now necessary to see
whether in the present matter abetment to commit suicide could
be said to be established. In the present matter, no doubt there
is evidence that the victim was assaulted and dragged outside
the house and there was attempt to push up her sari and there
was outrage of modesty. However, question is whether by such
act it could be said that the acts amounted to abetment to
commit suicide. No doubt there is also evidence that when the
victim ran inside and closed the door, the accused persons
continued to be there giving threat. But then, the evidence of
P.Ws.2 and 3 shows that, before the present incident there was
no quarrel between the parties and their relations were not
strained. The cross-examination of P.W.2 Syed Imam shows that
the relations between them and accused were cordial prior to the
incident and they never quarreled. P.W.3 Jubedabee stated that
the relations between her, P.W.2 Syed Imam and the accused
were cordial and that it was true that before the incident there
was no quarrel between the complainant and the accused. Thus,
although there is evidence that these prosecution witnesses had
trouble due to the liquor business of the accused persons and the
victim had even complained to one Deorao Khandare, before the

incident there were no strained relations as such. Thus, merely
because the incident of house-trespass, assault and outraging
modesty took place, that by itself cannot be calculated as
abetment to commit suicide. There is no material to show that
the intention of the accused persons was that the victim should
commit suicide. There is no material to show that they instigated
her to commit suicide or assisted or helped her. It was also not
a situation where circumstances were so created that the victim
had no other option than to commit suicide. It appears that, the
victim was over sensitive and at the spur of moment reacted in a
manner which may not have been expected by anybody. The
evidence shows that, even after the victim went inside, for some
time the accused were there outside, and the family could not
enter. It shows that, the victim had not, even while rushing
inside the house, indicated anything that she will commit such
act. Had that been so, the family would have made a hue and
cry and reacted faster.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.836 OF 2015
Vikrant @ Vikki s/o Kashinath Khandare,

V
State of Maharashtra

CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATED: 10th August, 2016.

Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)4604

Print Page

What are essential ingredients of offence of abetment of suicide?

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amalendu Pal @
Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 2010 SC 512, after
considering various earlier judgments on this issue, observed in para
15 & 16 as under:
“15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the 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 but to put an end to her life. 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, Indian Penal Code is not sustainable.”
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of
section 306 of 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.”
 Upon perusal of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court referred above, it is required to be borne in mind that in cases
of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or
indirect acts incitement to commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegations 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, conviction in terms of
section 306 of I.P. Code is not sustainable. Therefore, what is
required is that, unless there is 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 under section 306 is not
sustainable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5436 OF 2013

Vijay @ Munna Bharat Gurkhude Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.

PROUNCED ON: 9th SEPTEMBER, 2014
Citation:2016 ALLMR(cri) 2566

Print Page

When offence of abetment of suicide U/S 306 of IPC is not made out?

The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by
this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he/she committed suicide.

        33.  Generally, the person who commits suicide used to/liked to leave a
suicide note naming  certain person as responsible for his committing
suicide. Merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note we are 
not to immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender under
section 306 I.P.C.

        34. The contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances
have to be examined to find out whether it is abetment within the meaning of
section 306 I.P.C. read with section 107 I.P.C. There may be a case where in
the suicide note victim had named a person, who is responsible for his
committing suicide, but, on proper analysis, section 306 I.P.C. may not be
attracted to him.

        35. Recently, in Rajamannar v. State rep. by The Inspector of Police,
Sewapet, Police Station,Thiruvallur District (Crl.O.P. No. 8230/2014 dated
3.4.2014). A-2 introduced A-1 to the deceased as a person who will get
railway jobs for money. Relying on this, the deceased collected money from
many and gave it to A-1. Ultimately, A-1 cheated him. The job seekers
pressurised the deceased to return their money. Under these circumstances,
the deceased and his family members have committed suicide and the deceased   
left a suicide note that A-2 is responsible for their death. A-2 was arrested
for an offence under section 306 I.P.C.

        36. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, this Court came to
the conclusion that prima facie section 306 I.P.C. is not attracted towards
A-2 and observed as under:
?7. On reading the entire suicide note from the beginning to end, it is seen
that A-1 duped Sugumar, who received money from many persons. They have asked    
him and humiliated him. Unable to bear this humiliation, Sugumar committed
suicide.

8. For an offence under Section 306 IPC, there are twin requirements, namely,
suicide and abetment to commit suicide. No need to explain what is suicide.
But what is abetment has to be understood. It is not stated in Section 306
IPC. It is 'instigation', 'provocation', compelling a person to do certain
things or not to do certain things. This may be by words, deeds or writing or
even by signs. May be humiliation, degrading a person in the presence of
others. The act must be such that it must force, desire, compel a person to
take the extreme decision. But, it must be a positive act. Thus, the act
alleged to have committed on the part of the accused must have played a key
role for the victim to take a decision to commit suicide.

9. If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits
suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits
suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer
respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide. For
the wrong decision taken by a coward, fool, idiot, a man of weak mentality, a
man of frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his
committing suicide. Now, in this case, the suicide note shows that unable to
bear the humiliation given by the job seekers, Sugumar committed suicide. For
this, petitioner cannot be blamed. Further, no act or deed in the nature of a
positive act forced Sugumar and his family members emanated from the 
petitioner to force them to commit suicide. The conclusion would be Sugumar
died like a coward. Instead of protecting the family, he perished like an
unsuccessful man in life foolishly he also took along with him his other
family members also. For this, how can the petitioner be directly blamed.?

        37. Sometimes, the decision to commit suicide might be taken by the
victim himself/herself, unaccompanied by any act or instigation etc. on the
part of the accused. A person may die like a coward. On his failure in the
examination, a student may commit suicide. They are weak minded. They are  
persons of frail mentality. For their foolish mentality/decision, another
person cannot be blamed. 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 16.06.2016  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS            

Crl.A.(MD)No.142 of 2016 


Manikandan                            
Vs.

State,
rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Print Page