1. Summoning of an accused to face trial for abetment of suicide under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, following a quarrel and a casual remark. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 550
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Jayachandra Reddy : M.M.Punchhi
Swamy Prahaladdas
Versus
State Of M.P.
Case No. : of 1995
Date of Decision : 4/18/95
Casual words uttered in the heat of a quarrel, such as "go and die," do not constitute instigation for suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, as they lack the requisite mens rea and a direct causal link to the act of suicide.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Words uttered in the heat of the moment during a quarrel - Whether such words amount to instigation - Words like "go and die" are casual in nature and often employed during quarrels between people - No serious consequence is expected to follow such utterances - Such acts do not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out - Where the deceased had sufficient time to weigh the pros and cons before ending life, suicide cannot be termed as a direct result of such words - Summoning the accused to face trial on the basis of such utterances is an error. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A married woman was alleged to have had two paramours, one of whom was the deceased and the other the appellant. Due to sexual jealousy, a quarrel broke out between the three parties. During the quarrel, the appellant remarked to the deceased to "go and die". Subsequently, the deceased went home and committed suicide. The trial court summoned the appellant to face trial for the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the words uttered were casual and typical of people quarrelling in the heat of the moment. There was no evidence of mens rea, and the deceased had ample time to reflect before committing suicide, meaning the act was not a direct result of the appellant's words.
Issues: Whether the casual utterance of "go and die" during a quarrel constitutes instigation to commit suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: For an act to constitute abetment of suicide, there must be a clear intention to instigate; casual words spoken in the heat of a quarrel without the requisite mens rea, especially when the deceased has time to reflect, do not amount to instigation.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether casual utterances made during a quarrel constitute instigation sufficient to summon an accused for abetment of suicide under Section 306, Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Casual remarks made in the heat of a quarrel lack the requisite mens rea and are generally not sufficient to instigate suicide. (Para 3 )
4. Casual utterances made in the heat of the moment during a quarrel do not constitute instigation for suicide if they lack requisite mens rea. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed; orders of the High Court and Court of Session set aside; appellant discharged from facing charges. (Para 3 )
6. Does a casual remark like go and die made during a quarrel constitute instigation for suicide under Section 306 IPC?
No, such words are often casual and employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. They typically do not reflect the requisite mens rea that the words would be carried out in all events. (Para 3 )
7. What is the impact of the time elapsed between a provocative remark and the act of suicide on the charge of abetment?
If the deceased had sufficient time to weigh the pros and cons of the act before ending their life, the suicide cannot be termed a direct result of the words uttered by the accused. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted,
(2) THE impugned order of the High court of Madhya Pradesh is in confirmation of the order of the court of Session, whereby, the appellant herein, has been summoned to face trial for offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. The said order has been passed in this background : Sushila Bai, respondent, a married woman, is alleged to have had two paramours, one was the deceased and the other is the appellant. It is alleged that there was sexual jealousy between the two. The deceased was a married man. The prosecution alleges that Sushila Bai had completely bewitched him but her heart was with the appellant. On the morning of 13/6/1992, all the three had a quarrel while sharing their morning tea. During that course, the appellant is said to have remarked for the deceased to go and die. The prosecution alleges that thereafter the deceased went home in a dejected mood, whereafter he committed suicide. The suicide has been termed as the direct cause for the treatment meted out to the deceased by the appellant. It is Sushila Devi though, who alone stands committed to the court of Session to face trial because of her preferential treatment to the appellant.
(3) AT the time of framing of charge, the trial court thought it appropriate to associate the appellant herein as an accused because of the words he uttered to the deceased. We think that just on the basis of that utterance the court of Session was in error in summoning the appellant to face trial. In the first place it is difficult, in the facts and circumstances, to come to even a prima facie view that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. Besides the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant. For these reasons, the error is apparent requiring rectification. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the High court and that of the court of Session are thus upset. The appellant need not face the charge.
