Broken Promise to Marry & Relationship Breakup Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Under S.306 IPC: Bombay High Court - 2025-09-25

Bombay High Court Acquits Man in Abetment of Suicide Case, Citing Lack of 'Positive Act' of Instigation

Nagpur: In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has acquitted a man convicted of abetting his former girlfriend's suicide, holding that a broken promise to marry or the end of a relationship, by itself, does not constitute the offense of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The single-judge bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke overturned the 2016 conviction and 3-year sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, against Mahendra Shahare. The Court underscored that a conviction for abetment requires a clear mens rea (guilty mind) and a "positive act" of instigation that leaves the victim with no other option but to end their life.

Case Background

The prosecution's case was that Mahendra Shahare and the deceased, Maya, were in a five-year-long relationship. After Mahendra decided to marry another woman, Maya confronted him on January 28, 2009. She was allegedly turned away by his family. Following this, she filed a police complaint and approached the village's Tanta Mukti Samiti (Dispute Resolution Committee). A settlement was reached on January 30, 2009, wherein both parties agreed not to interfere in each other's lives.

However, the prosecution alleged that on February 21, 2009, Mahendra intercepted Maya, taunted her about the futility of her police complaint, and harassed her. The next day, Maya died by suicide, leaving a note stating she was taking her life due to harassment by Mahendra. Based on this, the trial court found him guilty of abetment under Section 306 IPC.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellant, represented by Shri Aditya Pande, argued that the ingredients for abetment were not met. He contended that a mere breach of a marriage promise does not amount to instigation. The defense highlighted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the deceased's parents and pointed to crucial evidence from a neighbour (PW2), who testified that the deceased's father was against the relationship and had harassed her.

The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B. Jawade, supported the trial court's verdict, arguing that the accused's harassment following the settlement directly led to the suicide.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

Justice Joshi-Phalke conducted a meticulous review of the evidence and legal precedents. The court found several weaknesses in the prosecution's case:

• Contradictory Evidence: The testimony of the neighbour (PW2) suggested that the deceased's father's opposition to the marriage was a major reason for her unhappiness. This contradicted the prosecution's narrative, which placed the entire blame on the accused.
• Unproven Suicide Note: The prosecution failed to examine the handwriting expert to formally prove that the suicide note was written by the deceased. The court noted this was a significant lapse.
• Lack of Specifics in Note: Even if considered, the suicide note only made a general allegation of "harassment" without detailing the specific acts of instigation that allegedly occurred just before her death.
• Improvements in Testimony: The court observed that the parents' statements about the accused threatening the deceased were "material omissions" and improvements made during the trial, which were not present in their initial police statements.

The judgment extensively cited Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing the high legal standard required to prove abetment. The court reiterated that "to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act" is the essence of instigation.

"A direct influence or an oblique impact with the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the mind of the deceased and which drove him to suicide will not be sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide," the court noted, citing established legal principles.

The Court held that the prosecution must prove a "positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide." It observed that a word uttered in anger or emotion, without the intention for the consequence to follow, cannot be termed instigation.

The Verdict and Its Implications

Concluding that the evidence did not establish the necessary ingredients for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, the High Court allowed the appeal.

"Merely because the accused refused to marry her, that by itself would not amount to instigate or provoke the deceased to commit suicide. At the most, what is attributable to the accused is, that he has broken the relationship," Justice Joshi-Phalke observed in the judgment.

The Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mahendra Shahare had played an active and direct role in instigating the suicide. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was quashed and set aside, and Mahendra Shahare was acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds were discharged.