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

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

Whether the court can quash prosecution against accused for an offence U/S 306 of IPC if no material is available him in chargesheet regarding that offence?

In the present case, at the outset, we must note that the

Applicant, a Judicial Officer, was never involved in the pending

lis, as the suit property was purchased by his brother

exclusively and only he was party to the litigation. There is no

reason for the deceased to have implicated the Applicant, as he

was not connected with the dispute at all. The material in the

charge-sheet in form of statements implicating the Applicant,

are too far fetched and definitely fall short of any instigation/

incitement and a bare reference to his presence in Miraj in the

month of May, where he is alleged to have threatened the

deceased and asked him to vacate the subject property is not

sufficient to attract instigation/incitement, as the offence is

registered on 24/06/2016. In any case, even it is not the

allegation of the prosecution that the Applicant abetted the

suicide by instigating or inciting the deceased in any manner,

as abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person

or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without

a positive act on part of the Applicant to instigate or aid in

commission of suicide by the deceased, he cannot be convicted

for an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

In order to attract the offence under Section 306, clear

mens rea to commit the offence has to be established, as it

requires active/direct act, leading the deceased to commit

suicide left with no other option, but in the present case, the

material in the charge-sheet falls short of proving the

ingredients of Section 306 and, hence, in our view, by

exercising the inherent power conferred under Section 482,

the purpose of it being to prevent the abuse of process or to

secure the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to safeguard

the interest of the Applicant.

In absence of we exercising the power, the Applicant will

have to unnecessarily face the rigmarole of trial, which

ultimately would result in acquittal, as no material in the

charge-sheet collected by the prosecution attract the

ingredients of Section 306 of IPC and we would be failing in

discharge of our duty, if we do not step in and save the

Applicant from undergoing the long drawn process of trial, as

the material in the charge-sheet through close scrutiny, do not

in any manner, establish the ingredients of abetment of suicide

under Section 306 of IPC against him.

For the reasons recorded above, we are satisfied that

human liberty, which is the most cherished constitutional

value, must be protected by us, by exercising the inherent

power conferred under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

Code. {Para 20}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.959 OF 2016

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2060 OF 2024

Nasirhusen Mohiddin Jamadar Vs  The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

 DATED : 18 th  NOVEMBER, 2024

ORDER (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J.) :-

Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:45637-DB.

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 bank manager refusing to sanction loan can be held guilty for abetment of suicide?

Law is well crystallized by various pronouncements of

the Honourable Apex Court and of this Court. It would be useful

to have a reference of few cases of the Honourable Apex Court

without detailing facts in those cases:

(1) Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh, reported at 2002(3) Cri.L.J.

2796,

(2) Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and

anr, reported at 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3245 (SC).

13. One of leading case on this issue is, Dilip s/o Ramrao

Shirasao and ors vs. State of Maharashtra and anr reported at 2016

ALL MR (Cri) 4328, this Court discussed in detail various

pronouncements of the Honourable Apex Court. The ratio of the

said is that it is incumbent upon prosecution to at least show prima

facie case that accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet

deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of availability of such

material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

14. Admittedly, in this case, the Loan Account of the

complainant was showing outstanding to the tune of

Rs.2,32,689/-. The said aspect is not denied by the prosecution.

Sudhir Gawande, the deceased, was not having any loan

outstanding in his name. Even, according to the prosecution,

Sudhir Gawande, the deceased, went to the Bank of Maharashtra,

Morshi Branch, District Amravati for loan. If previous loan amount

is outstanding and if the applicant, who is Branch Manager of the

said Bank, is refusing to grant any further loan, can be said as act

of a vigilant and prudent banker and if he is not granting any

further loan, it cannot be termed that by such act he instigated

and/or abetted the person to commit suicide.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.63 OF 2016

Santoshkumar Raj Kishor Prasad Singh, Vs  The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, &

ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2020.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : V.M.Deshpande, J.)

Print Page

Whether court can convict father-in-law for offence U/S 202 of IPC if he fails to inform the authorities about the suicide of daughter-in-law?

The learned Counsel for the respondent State of Rajasthan, however, submitted that the accused would atleast be liable of having committed other offences. It may be noted that the question whether they would be liable under Section 498-A or 304-B does not arise for consideration inasmuch as these provisions were not on the statute on the day of occurrence. However, A 1 was atleast under an obligation to give information about the death of the deceased since the same was unnatural. Assuming that the prosecution has not positively proved that the death was homicidal yet from the medical evidence it is clear that it was not a natural death and consequently the death should atleast be noted as one of suicide. Even in the case of suicide an offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 is inherent. There- fore, even in the case of a suicide there is an obligation on the person, who knows or has reason to believe that such a suicidal death has occurred , to give information. In Kalidas Achamma v. The State of A.P., S.H.O. Karimnagar. I Town P.S. [1987] 2 ALT 937 it was observed as under:

In the case of every suicide abetment is inherent. Whether ultimately it is proved or not, it is a different aspect. Abetment of suicide is an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and therefore whenever a case of suicide is there, the body cannot be disposed of without informing the Police and further as provided under Section 174 Cr. PC the Police have to hold an inquest since it is an unnatural death.

In the instant case A 1, who reached his house on 18.3.82 knowing fully well that the deceased had already died, informed P.W. 8 that the deceased was in a serious condition. Likewise he informed P.W. 12 on telephone without disclosing that the deceased was already dead. However, when P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, came to the house where the dead body was lying, A 1 told him that the body would be cremated. To the same effect is the evidence of P.W. 13. P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, on his own went and gave a report to the police. It can thus be seen that A 1 intentionally omitted to give the information in respect of the death of the deceased which he was legally bound to give. Section 202 1. P. C. is in the following terms:

202. Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform-Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

This Section punishes the illegal omission of those who under law are bound to give information in respect of an offence which he is legally bound to give particularly being the head of the family. Under this provision it is necessary for the prosecution to prove (1) that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that some offence had been committed (2) that the accused had intentionally omitted to give information respecting that offence and (3) that the accused was legally bound to give that information. Shri R.K. Jain, however, relied on a judgment of this Court in Harishchandrasing Sajjansingh Rathod and Another v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0114/1979 : 1979CriLJ1025 and contended that the word "Whoever" occurring in the opening part of the Section refers to a person other then the offender and has no application to the person who is alleged to have committed the principal offence. In that case the accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 331 and 304 read with Section 34 IPC in respect of the death of the deceased and were acquitted.-On appeal by the State the High Court, however, convicted them under Section 202 IPC A Bench of this Court while reversing the order of High Court observed thus:

We have gone through the entire evidence bearing on the aforesaid offence under Section 202 but have not been able to discern anything therein which may go to establish the aforesaid ingredients of the offence under Section 202 of the Penal Code. The offence in respect of which the appellants were indicted viz. having intentionally omitted to give information respecting an offence which he is legally bound to give not having been established, the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 202 of the Penal Code. It is well settled that in a prosecution under Section 202 of the Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the main offence before making a person liable under this section. The offence under Section 304 (Part II) and the one under Section 331 of the Penal Code not having been established on account of several infirmities it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 202 of the Penal Code. The High Court has also missed to notice that the word 'whoever' occurring at the opening part of Section 202 of the Penal Code refers to a person other than the offender and has no application to the person who is alleged to have committed the principal offence. This is so because there is no law which casts a duty on a criminal to give information which would incriminate himself That apart the aforementioned ingredients of the offence under Section 202 of the Penal Code do not appear to have been made out against the prosecution. There is not an iota of evidence to show that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the aforesaid main offences had been committed.

(emphasis supplied)

19. From these observations it is clear that there was no evidence to show that the accused therein knew or had reason to believe that the said offences have been committed and on the other hand they were made principal offenders. In such a situation the ingredients of Section 202 can not be said to have been made out. It is in this context that the meaning of the word "whoever" has been considered. But in the instant case A 1 returned to his house where the dead body was lying on 18.3.82 and the circumstances clearly go to show that he had knowledge that the deceased died of an unnatural death. Therefore he had knowledge or atleast had reason to believe that an offence had been committed even if, at that stage, he thought that it was only a suicide. Therefore it was his bounden duty particularly as head of the family to inform the authorities. He omitted to do so. On the other hand, he went about telling that the deceased was still alive and her condition was serious. But when P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased, came to the house and enquired, A 1 told him that the body would be cremated and he intended to do so without informing the authorities. Therefore all the ingredients of Section 202 are made out against him and he clearly committed the offence punishable under this Section at that stage. The fact that he himself was made an accused in other offences subsequently does not absolve him of his complicity in respect of the offence punishable under Section 202 IPC So far A 2 is concerned, he came to the house only after the investigation commenced. Therefore his case stands on a different footing. In the result the convictions and sentences awarded against A 1 and A 2 l are set aside. A 1, however, is convicted under Section 202 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1984

Decided On: 28.08.1991

Bhagwan Swarup  Vs. State of Rajasthan

Print Page

Whether court can convict accused for an offence U/S 306 of IPC if he was charged under S 498A and 304B of IPC?

 Both the Courts below have found the husband guilty of cruel treatment of his wife and as a result the wife committed suicide within seven years of their marriage. On such evidence the presumption which arises under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is that the husband abetted the suicide. The word "cruelty" as mentioned in the Explanation below Section 113A of the Evidence act has been given the same meaning as contained in the Explanation below Section 498A, IPC. On the fact found, 'the wilful' conduct of the husband in forcing the deceased to part with her land which she had received in marriage as "stridhana" and for that purpose concealing her postal mail was so cruel that she was driven to commit suicide. A case of conviction and sentence of accused No. 1 under Section 306, IPC has thus clearly been made out even though his acquittal for commission of the offence of 'dowry death' punishable under Section 304B, IPC is not found liable to be disturbed.

20. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that in the absence of a charge framed against the accused under Section 306 IPC, the accused cannot be convicted under the said Section.

21. From the record we find that although a charge specifically under Section 306 IPC was not framed but all facts and ingredients constituting that offence were mentioned in the Statement of Charges framed under Section 498A and Section 304B of IPC. 

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 304B and in the Alternative Section 498A, IPC (as quoted above) it is clear that all facts and ingredients for framing charge for offence under Section 306, IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention of Section 306, IPC with 498A, IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the alternate charge framed under Section 498A of IPC, 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 of Cr.P.C. 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.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (crl.) 1457 of 1995

Decided On: 25.10.2002

 K. Prema S. Rao  Vs.  Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.B. Shah, K.G. Balakrishnan and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0890/2002,(2003) 1 SCC 217

Print Page

Whether accused can be prosecuted for abetment of suicide if suicide note bears his name?

Death by commission of suicide must have been the desired object of the abettors; and with that in view they must have instigated, goaded, urged or encouraged the victim in commission of suicide. The instigation may be by provoking or inciting the person committing suicide and this instigation may be gathered by positive acts done by the abettors or by omission in the doing of a thing. Thus, the acts or omission committed by the abettors immediately before the commission of suicide are vital. The mere fact that certain persons have been named in the suicidal note to be responsible for his death is not by itself a ground to fasten one with the charge of abetment. In terms of Section 107, it must prima facie appear to hold that the person named in the suicide note to be responsible for commission of suicide has abetted in the act. The act for conduct of the accused, even if there may be any, however, insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts consequence of suicide.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 164 of 2018

Decided On: 30.01.2019

Gulab   Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S. Shinde and R.G. Avachat, JJ.

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 higher officer can be held guilty for abetment of suicide if he taking extra work from employee after office hours?

 In the context of aforesaid legal positions, this court is of

the view that alleged act of mis-behaviour and taking extra work
after the office hours from the deceased cannot be equated into
abetting the deceased to commit suicide. If any higher officer
compels his sub-ordinate to do extra work which is unbearable,
then he has other options and it cannot be said that he had no
other option except to commit suicide. Under these
circumstances, the appellant cannot be held responsible for
abetting the deceased to commit suicide.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi
Cr.A. No.4509/2018

Satendra Jha vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

(Passed on 06/03/2019)

Print Page

Whether slapping husband in presence of others amounts to instigation to commit suicide?

 In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that she had slapped the deceased 3 days prior to the deceased committing suicide. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioner instigated, conspired or aided in commission of suicide by the deceased. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner instigated or exhorted the deceased to commit suicide.

18. The allegation is that the petitioner slapped the deceased in presence of others. Even if one were to consider the incident of alleged slapping as instigation then one has to keep in mind that the alleged conduct should be such as to drive any normal prudent person into committing suicide. Mere act of slapping the husband in presence of others would not under normal circumstances instigate a husband to commit suicide.

19. Further, alleged suicide note relied on by the prosecution does not refer to any incident of slapping. On the other hand, the suicide note alleges that the father of the petitioner had not revealed about the deformity in the back of the petitioner on account of which the deceased's life had become a joke. The suicide note alleges that the accused had made allegations about the relationship between the deceased and his sister-in-law (brother's wife) and had also alleged that the deceased's brother was mentally unsound. The suicide note does not make any reference to any incident of slapping.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.)

Shikha Gupta v. State (GNCT of Delhi) .

Crl. Rev. P. 330/2017

Decided on January 8, 2019,

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6394

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

SHORT NOTES ON MURDER,CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND SUICIDE

The first offence against human life is culpable homicide. The word 'Homicide' comes from latin word 'homa' means man and 'cide' means cut. Killing of a human being by another human being is homicide.

Kinds if homicide- Homicide is either lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide includes cases falling under the general exceptions that is S 76 to S 106.

Read important judgments on Murder.
Click here

S 299 of IPC defines culpable homicide as,Whoever causes death,

1. with intention of causing death,
2. with intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
3. With knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.
   Explanation to S 299 of IPC.
   

Print Page

Whether offence U/S 498A of IPC is made out if husband is having extra-marital relationship?

True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498A Indian Penal Code would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra), but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the Appellant No. 4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498-A which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.

16. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one's endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts. Extra-marital relationship, per se, or as such would not come within the ambit of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. It would be an illegal or immoral act, but other ingredients are to be brought home so that it would constitute a criminal offence. There is no denial of the fact that the cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case. It will depend upon the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 Indian Penal Code.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1138-1139 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 5928-5929 of 2016)

Decided On: 22.11.2016

K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka

Print Page

Whether offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out if wife commits suicide in her matrimonial home?

Budhiyarinbai (PW4) has also admitted in her cross-examination that her daughter Jamunbai used to come to the maternal house on every occasions of Tijafestival and after the festival they used to take her to her matrimonial house. She also admitted that father of her daughter used to go to the matrimonial house of their daughter and return after knowing well being of their daughter. She further admitted that they did not report about assault or beating to their daughter nor did they call any panchayat meeting in this regard. In paragraph 8, she has categorically admitted that during the period of 4 years their daughter never complained of any assault on her. In paragraph 9 also, she admitted that her daughter was coming to her maternal house happily and was returning to her matrimonial house happily. She never refused to go back to her matrimonial house.

14. From the above statements of Chintaram (PW3) and Budhiyarinbai (PW4), it is clear that their daughter/deceased used to visit at her maternal house on every occasions of Tija festival. It is also clear that father of the deceased also used to visit the matrimonial house of the deceased. From the admission of Budhiyarinbai (PW4) in paragraph 8, it is also clear that the deceased never complained of beating to her by the in-laws during the period of 4 years. From her admission, it is further clear that the deceased was happily going to her matrimonial house and she never refused to go to her matrimonial house. From the statements of both these witnesses, it is clear that there were small domestic issues between the deceased and her in-laws and she was not having any grievance against the issues.

15. Baliram (PW7), brother-in-law (Jija) of the deceased has stated that once he had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased. At that time, the Appellants had not talked to him, therefore, he had returned therefrom. At that time, the deceased had told him that whenever any of her relatives visits there, they do not talk to the relative. She had also told him that after returning of the relative, they beat her. In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that this incident took place before 2 years of the death of the deceased. He further admitted that during those 2 years, he never listened about any beating given to the deceased by her in-laws. From the above also, the prosecution case does not find support.

In the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

(Before Arvind Singh Chandel, J.)

 Chhannu, S/o Tikaram Sahu, 

v.

State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) .

Criminal Appeal No. 2537 of 1999

Decided on November 6, 2017, 

Citation:

2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1234

Print Page

What amounts to abetment to commit suicide?(remote mental pressure)

“Whether a direct/remote mental pressure associated with
serious criminal intimidation be treated as an abetment to commit
suicide? When and why a person commits suicide?
 Mr. Basu in his usual eloquence made an erudite submission that
sometimes in a society which consists of different communities, norms,
practices and even prejudices entertained by the members of a community
largely control their social attitude. Such attitude may not be commendableor accepted by the other communities, yet practices/prejudices continue the
signature tune in the life of particular community.
35. I find there is no reason to differ with his views about the social
customs, usage and mind set of different communities. But the menace of
the custom should be axed. It would not be prudent to allow that mind set,
which has a detrimental effect, to go on. Now, we are in 21st Century and
not in 18th Century, when “Sati daha” system was prevalent. Our social
reformers like Raja Rammohon Roy, & others rose to the occasion and as a
result, “Satidaha” system was abolished and at the instance of Vidyasagar,
Hindu Widow’s remarriage had seen the light of the day. Simply that
custom was there so it may be seen from that angle is not an acceptable
argument. It is true that a decade ago “Sati daha” (Roop Kanowar) took
place and recently “Khap Panchayat” came to the news. These are mere
exceptions. Indian culture does not permit it.
36. A poor Muslim boy, who is educated enough, fell in love with
Hindu girl and married legally to which that adult Hindu girl had full
consent. They led their conjugal life for some days. The parents-in-law,
who are business magnets, raised stiff opposition. They knew that they
could not dissolve the marital tie legally. So, they have taken the help of
Lalbazar i.e. High Officials of Calcutta Police Headquarter. Only by
encashing their business charisma, they got full support of the highly placed
top brass police officials and negotiated the issues so that the parents could
get back their daughter. Days together, there were meetings after meetings.
When the father and uncle failed to convince Priyanka to come back, they
took the help of police officer again. They have taken the plea that thefather of the girl was ailing and he desired to meet his daughter. On that
pretext, after giving an undertaking by one of the relations, (Anil Saraogi)
Priyanka was taken back to her parents’ house on the ground of seeing her
ailing parents. Curiously enough, within two days, so-called ailing father
took Priyanka to Tirupati so that the victim Rizwanur could not keep any
contact with Priyanka. It is anybody’s guess, as to what type of serious
illness the father of Priyanka had.
37. When and why a person commits suicide? It depends on the mind
set of an individual. In similar circumstances, one may not commit suicide
but other does. But it is axiomatic truth that out of pleasure and joy nobody
commits suicide. Nobody commits suicide when he passes through his own
normal life. People take such stern decisions under certain circumstances.
No prediction is possible. Psycho-analysists and researchers of this field
have identified some factors, which drives a person to commit suicide.
38. These factors are sense of unbearable psychological pain, a sense
of isolation from others and a perception that death is the only solution,
when the said individual is temporarily unable to think candidly being
blinded by overwhelming pain. The researchers pointed out that negative
emotions, shame, anger, fear, sense of guilt and extreme sadness may be
the foundation for self-destructive behaviour.
39. There are many other prime factors such as recent extreme
stresses, social pressure, chronic pain, physical disease, social stigma, any
kind of trauma of permanent nature and severe depression, which are
considered as one of the reasons of suicide.40. More often than not suicide stems from blocked or unfulfilled
psychological needs. This tends to be what causes the pain that the suicidal
act seeks to end. A pervasive sense of hopelessness, defined in terms of
pessimistic expectations about the future, is even more important than
other form of negative emotions, such as anger and depression, in predicting
suicidal behaviour. In such a situation, the person who commits suicide is
fully convinced that nothing can be done to improve his situation.
Sometimes some people contemplate suicide. They have ambivalent feelings
about this decision. Therefore, the suicide provides a distinctive way to
escape from intolerable circumstances, which includes painful selfawareness.
The cessation can be visualized as offering a solution to life’s
problems.
41. A person’s mind and body may react to trauma over a period time,
perhaps days, weeks or months so the people suffering from a trauma react
in different ways, suicide is the result of ‘psychotic’. An unbearable
psychological pain arising largely from frustrated psychological needs. It is
said there is a great deal of psychological pain in the world without suicide
but there is no suicide without a great deal of psychological pain.
42. In this instant case from the day of getting the news of marriage of
Priyanka with Rizwanur, the parents and relations of Priyanka tried tooth
and nail to dissolve the marriage. Initially they persuaded but failed.
Thereafter, offered bribe by placing a blank cheque. Again Rizwanur and
Priyanka refused. The parents took the help of police personnels of high
rank. This also initially did not click. Being induced by the parents, top
brass police officials began to threat Rizwanur to arrest on the ground ofabduction. At the behest of police an agreement was entered into by which
Priyanka was taken back to her parents’ house of seven days. She was
supposed to come back on 15.09.2007/16.09.2007. But she did not come
back. She was not kept in West Bengal. She was taken to Tirupati, Rizwanur
could not contact with his wife. Priyanka however made contact through
other’s phone on conference. Why conference call? When Priyanaka has cell
phone of her own. This indicates Priyanka’s mobile was not with Priyanka.
Conference call was there so that another person could hear their
conversation. Human Rights Commission was informed. A human right
organisation (APDR) also interfered. The victim was contemplating to take
legal action and out of fear he even could not remain in his house. He had to
take shelter in the house of his friends. During that period he could not
keep contact with his lady love. All these factors appear from the statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This apart, a huge money was given to
Pappu by Todi at ITC Sonar Hotel. Priyanka also corroborated that her
parents, relations and police personnels, constantly persuaded as well as
threatened Rizwanur for entangling him in a criminal case.
43. If one considers these facts, then it can be prima facie held such
activities are the clear indications to put Rizwanur in extreme depressed
condition. He could not fight with his parents’ in law, who are moneyed
men. Police did not give him any assistance rather they were hostile. Local
M.L.A. also turned hostile. Therefore, he had faced hindrances from four P’s
i.e. ‘Power of money’ (of Todi’s) ‘Police’, ‘Politician’, and ‘Poverty’, (his own).
He had no ventilator in his life, from where he could get oxygen to breathe.
These are the surrounding circumstances as appeared from the
investigation. Therefore, it appears prima facie that creation of suchsituation is the cause of suicide. Such acts as described above are prima
facie the glaring examples of instigation and incitement.
44. Therefore, if we consider the cumulative effect of mental pressure put by
the accused persons associated with criminal intimidation and the factors
(as mentioned above) which leads person to commit suicide are taken
together then it prima facie comes within the purview of ‘abetment’.
45. In the words of Bertrand Russel ‘To feel tragedy, a man must be aware of
the world in which he lives, not only with his mind but with his blood and
sinews. ‘(Conquest of happiness)’. The victim’s note discloses all these

things.’
 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
C.R.R. No. 1396 of 2011
(Ahok Kr. Todi vs. C.B.I.)

Print Page