Supreme Court: Surviving Partner In Mutual Suicide Pact Liable For Abetment

 SURVIVING PARTNER IN A MUTUAL SUICIDE PACT IS LEGALLY CULPABLE

117. Notwithstanding the culpability of the act of purchasing pesticide, the Accused’s participation in a suicide pact renders him culpable under Section 107 IPC. A suicide pact involves mutual encouragement and reciprocal commitment to die together. The survivor’s presence and participation acts as a direct catalyst for the deceased’s actions. It is pertinent to mention that abetting as defined under Section 107 IPC is not limited to physical act of supplying means to commit suicide. Accordingly, any psychological assurance or instigation, as long as the same is intentional and directly related to the commission of offence, also constitutes abetment.

118. This Court is of the view that it is the reciprocal commitment of each party to commit suicide which provides necessary impetus/support to the other to go through with the act. In a suicide pact, it is implicit that each participant knows the intent of the other to commit the act knowing that their withdrawal from the pact will likely deter the other. Each party’s resolve to commit the act is, therefore, reinforced and strengthened due to the participation of the other party. Suicide in a suicide pact is conditional upon mutual participation of the other. In other words, if not for the active participation of both the parties, the act would not occur. The law treats such conduct as abetment because the State has a fundamental interest in preserving life. Any assistance in ending life is treated as a crime against the State.

119. Consequently, this Court holds that the accused’s conduct in entering into and acting upon the suicide pact falls squarely within all the three situations envisaged in Section 107 of the IPC. His participation directly facilitated the deceased’s suicide. Notably, it is not his defence that the deceased was the dominant personality who pressured him into the pact. His culpability therefore stands established.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 457 OF 2012

GUDIPALLI SIDDHARTHA REDDY Vs  STATE C.B.I.

Author: MANMOHAN, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 160.

Print Page

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

 The Case That Reveals Complex Legal Realities

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

Print Page

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

 CHARGE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

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

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

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

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

What are the essential ingredients for applicability of S 113A of Evidence Act?

  From the bare reading of the said provisions, it clearly transpires that in order to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established. {Para 8}

44. 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.

45. 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.”

10. In view of the above, it is quite clear that in order to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused. For the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.

15. In Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 595, this Court considering the provisions of Section 498A and 306 of IPC in the light of the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, observed as under: -

“30. We are of the view that the mere fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113- A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the presumption as defined under Section 498-A IPC, may attract, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The term “the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband” would indicate that the presumption is discretionary. So far as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated that the prosecution has not succeeded in showing that there was a dowry demand, nor would the reasoning adopted by the courts below would be sufficient enough to draw a presumption so as to fall under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …. Of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8584/2022) 

KASHIBAI & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Coram: AJAY RASTOGI; J., BELA M. TRIVEDI; J. 

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

Dated: 28.02.2023 

Print Page

Whether S 306 of IPC will be applicable if the person committing suicide survives?

Under the general principle of law embodied in Section 511 I.P.C. every offence can be attempted also. In jurisprudential theory intention, preparation, attempt and commission are the four specific stages of commission of every crime, from principle and precedent I am unable to accept the theory that so far as the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is concerned, this third step/phase must be held to be absent and non-existent in all cases. I take the view that an attempt to commit the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is certainly possible and there is no warrant for the presumption that there cannot ever be a conviction for an offence under Section 306 r/w. 511 I.P.C. If a person abets the commission of suicide and the abetment does not succeed and fructify into a completed offence under Section 306 I.P.C. it must, according to me certainly, be held to fall within the sweep of Section 306 r/w. 511 I.P.C.{Para 21}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

B.A. No. 7311 of 2007

Decided On: 18.12.2007

 Berin P. Varghese and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Basant, J.

Citation:  MANU/KE/0590/2007

Print Page

Whether an offence of Abetment of suicide By Instigation Depends On Intention Of Accused or Victim's Actions?

 The note is scribed by the deceased few hours before

she took the extreme step and is an expression of despair and her

anguish; it reflect her desperation and pain.

She is a girl in formative years and her writing give an

impression that she feel trapped. It is possible that any other girl

in similar circumstances would have responded to the situation in a different way, but as stated above, the applicant was her own

uncle and considering the close association of the family with

him, there was an absolute inhibition on her part to blame him

and embroil him in accusation. The screen shots from the mobile

make it apparent that the applicant was harassing the deceased

and inspite of her strong protest, was seeking something from her, leaving her in a despondent state.

12 The accepted legal position being to the effect that

the word ‘instigation’ is to goad, urge, forward, provoke, incite or

encourage to do an act. However, to satisfy the requirement of

instigation, though it is necessary that the actual words must be

used to that effect, but what constitutes instigation must

necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences.

The position of law which emerges from the authoritative

pronouncements is that a reasonable certainty to incite, the

consequences must be capable of being spelt out. The offence of

abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person

who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who

was abetted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2687 OF 2021

Gaurav  Sopan Narkhede Vs  The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2021

Print Page

Whether the court can hold accused guilty U/S 498A of IPC if the wife was given cruelty due to her dark complexion?

 Though argument was raised that prosecution case could not be

believed on the ground that even after knowing the commission of cruelty

upon the victim, and cause of cruelty, the parents of victim never

reported the same to police station or to panchyaat body, and the

neighbouring people living around in-law’s house of deceased victim, but

this cannot be invariable rule that parent would immediately lodge a

complaint immediately after knowing commission of cruelty upon their daughter, ignoring possibilty of reconciliation mutually. It is ordinary conduct that parents would prefer to persuade their daughter ignoring the torture, and the cruelty for the future benefit of their daughter.

Causing cruelty to deceased victim for her black complexion even after her marriage by the in-law’s members would definitly attract Section 498A/34 I.P.C. against the in-law’s members, including accused husband.

In the High Court at Calcutta

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:-

The Hon’ble Justice Sahidullah Munshi.

And

The Hon’ble Justice Subhasis Dasgupta.

CRA No. 247 of 2006

Mazidul Miah @ Mia & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Judgment on : 25.06.2020

Subhasis Dasgupta, J:-

Print Page

Whether the court can convict husband for abetment of suicide to wife in the absence of mens rea and overt acts?

To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under

Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a

particular crime must be visible, to determine the

culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to

be something on record to establish or show that the

appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance

of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the

deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed

to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and

conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present

matter is that both the Trial Court as well as the High

Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea

for the crime, he is held to have committed.

Proceeding with the above understanding of the law

and applying the ratios to the facts in the present

case, what is apparent is that no overt act or illegal

omission is seen from the appellant’s side, in taking

due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does

not indicate that the deceased faced persistent

harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect is

testified by the parents or any of the other

prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court and the High

Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any

evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the

appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his

wife.

20. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in

declaring that the Trial Court and the High Court erred

in concluding that the deceased was driven to commit

suicide, by the circumstances or atmosphere in the

matrimonial home. This is nothing more than an

inference, without any material support. Therefore, the

same cannot be the basis for sustaining conviction of

the appellant, under section 306 of the IPC.

 [REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2011

Gurcharan Singh  Vs The State of Punjab 

Author: Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Dated: OCTOBER 1, 2020

Print Page