Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Shenbagavalli and Others – Appellants
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4268 of 2024, Criminal Appeal No. 4269 of 2024
Decided On : 30-04-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 read with Section 107 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Abetment of suicide - Charge-sheet - Quashing petition - Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential, ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC - There is nothing on record to indicate that on the date of unfortunate incident or any time in close proximity thereof there was any act of instigation on part of Appellants - From suicide note, no abetment can be said to have been established that accused instigated deceased or there being any persistent cruelty or harassment which would make out an offence of abetment of suicide - Merely on the basis of allegations of harassment and that too a month ago with in between there being no contact of any sort on part of Appellants, till the time of occurrence which can be said to have led or compelled deceased to have committed suicide, offence has not been made out - Mens rea cannot be presumed, but must be ostensibly present and visible, which is missing in present case - Merely because act of an accused is highly insulting to deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide - There should be evidence suggesting that accused intended by such act to instigate deceased to commit suicide - Continuation of criminal proceedings initiated against Appellants would amount to abuse of process of law - Court cannot permit such proceedings to degenerate into instruments of harassment or unjust prosecution - Criminal proceedings quashed and set aside - Appeals allowed. (Paras 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
These two criminal appeals have been preferred against judgment dated 13.04.2018, passed by Single Judge of Madras High Court, which dismissed petitions preferred by Appellants under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of charge-sheet submitted against them under Section 306 IPC.
Findings of Court:
When offence under Section 306 itself is not being made out continuance of the proceedings against the Appellants cannot be permitted.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and conclusions are as follows:
Mens rea, or the intention to commit a crime, cannot be presumed in cases of abetment of suicide. It must be clearly visible and ostensibly present. Merely insulting or using abusive language towards the deceased does not constitute abetment of suicide unless there is evidence of an intent to instigate or incite the deceased to commit suicide (!) (!) .
The ingredients necessary to establish abetment under the relevant legal provisions include provocation, instigation, or active involvement that leads the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of such proximate acts or words, and with no evidence of continuous harassment or instigation close to the time of the suicide, the offense is not made out (!) (!) .
A suicide note alone, especially when torn pages are involved without forensic confirmation of handwriting or clear evidence linking the accused to the act of instigation, is insufficient to establish the offense of abetment. The contents of the note must indicate a direct or indirect act of incitement or persistent cruelty that would leave the deceased with no other option but to end life (!) (!) .
The timing and sequence of events are critical. If there is a significant gap between alleged harassment or provocation and the suicide, and no contact or further acts of harassment are evident in the interim, it weakens the case for abetment (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue if they are based on insufficient evidence, especially when continuing would amount to an abuse of process or unjust prosecution. The absence of essential elements of the offense warrants quashing of the proceedings (!) (!) .
Ultimately, since the essential ingredients of abetment—such as incitement, intention, and proximate act—are not established, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants is unjustified. The court has exercised its power to quash these proceedings to prevent harassment and ensure justice (!) (!) .
In summary, the court held that the evidence did not substantiate the claim of abetment of suicide by the appellants, and therefore, the proceedings were quashed to prevent misuse of the legal process.
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. These two criminal appeals have been preferred against judgment dated 13.04.2018, passed by the Single Judge of the Madras High Court, which dismissed the petitions preferred by the Appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet submitted against them under Section 306 IPC. The relevant basic facts of the case are that the deceased Dinesh and Pushpakalashree (Accused No. 7) got married on 15.09.2013. Both are well qualified, as the deceased was an engineer whereas Accused No. 7 is an MBA graduate.
2. Soon after the marriage, relationship between the couple deteriorated. It is alleged that on 10.11.2013, Accused No. 1 to 6 came to the residence of the deceased and had a quarrel. They not only abused the deceased and his family with filthy language but also insulted the deceased by calling him impotent and infertile. Accused No. 7 went along with Accused No. 1 to 6 to her parental house.
3. The prosecution’s case rests on the assertion that the deceased from 10.11.2013 to 09.12.2013 was continuously subjected to harassment by Accused No. 1 to 7, owing to which Dinesh committed suicide.
4. Initially, the Police registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. based upon the complaint made by Mr. K. Suresh (Respondent No. 2), the younger brother of the deceased. It is also asserted that while taking away Accused No. 7 along with them, the other co-accused threatened that they would get a dowry case registered against the deceased and his mother to get them arrested.
5. Due to this shame, degradation and depression, the deceased had stopped coming out of his house to face the public. During the course of investigation, the deceased’s mother- Ambika handed over torn pages of a diary allegedly maintained by the deceased containing a suicide note disclosing the continued harassment undergone by the deceased at the hands of Accused No. 1 to 7. In the light of the above, the FIR was registered under Section 306 by altering it from Section 174 of Cr.P.C. After the conversion of the case under Section 306 of IPC and on completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellants which was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C. No. 9 of 2016.
6. On such presentation of the chargesheet followed by committal proceedings, a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was preferred before the High Court challenging the same on the ground that no offence under Section 306 is made out even going by the alleged suicide note which is based upon the torn pages of the diary of the deceased which was being maintained by him. The ingredients of Section 306 were not made out. The other aspects with regard to the aspect of there being flaws in the investigation were also pointed out. The High Court on considering the submissions made by the parties proceeded to dismiss the same leading to the filing of the present appeals.
7. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the alleged suicide note does not specify the date on which it was written. It is asserted that although it is the stand of the prosecution that the torn pages of the diary were sent to the forensic laboratory, but no such report has been placed on record identifying it to be the handwriting of the deceased. It is asserted that the incident of harassment which led to the deceased committing suicide took place on 10.11.2013 whereas the suicide incident had taken place after one month i.e. 09.12.2013.
8. Going by the suicide note, Accused No. 7, along with two others had visited the house of the deceased only once after the incident, i.e. the next day (11.11.2013) and thereafter there has been no further contact with them.
9. There is nothing on record to indicate that, on the date of the unfortunate incident or any time in close proximity thereof there was any act of instigation on the part of the Appellants. On this basis, it is contended that the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfil
(1) Abetment of suicide - Mens rea cannot be presumed, but must be ostensibly present and visible, which is missing in present case - Merely because act of an accused is highly insulting to deceased ....
For abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, clear and proximate evidence of instigation or aid from the accused is essential; mere allegations in a civil dispute are insufficient.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intent; mere allegations linked to civil disputes do not meet this threshold.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, clear mens rea and direct acts of instigation or aid are required, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment.
To sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of intentional abetment or instigation is required, with actions having a proximate link to the suicide.
(1) Abetment of suicide – Act of abetment must be proved and established by prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.(2) Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without any....
Denial of marriage does not constitute abetment of suicide under IPC without clear evidence of instigation or aiding the act.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, there must be clear intent or instigation from the accused leading to the victim's suicide, which was not met in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
