Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. VISWANATHAN, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Balaji Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State of Chattisgarh And Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1966 of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 14640 of 2025)
Decided On : 16-04-2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 read with Section 107 read with Section 34 – Abetment of suicide – Common intention – Framing of charge – For sustaining charge under Section 306 of IPC, it has to be shown that accused persons had contributed to suicide by deceased through some direct or indirect act – There ought to be some material to indicate positive act of instigation, which is a crucial component of abetment – Instigation or incitement on part of accused person has been held to be gravamen of offence of abetment to suicide – Act of instigation also has to be in close proximity to act of suicide so as to form nexus or chain to indicate that act of suicide was direct result of act of instigation by accused person – Existence of all ingredients constituting alleged offence would be necessary – There is no allegation that appellant had instigated deceased to commit suicide – There is no material on record to infer that deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide – In absence of such mens rea on part of accused, charge under Section 306 of IPC cannot be sustained – Continuation of such criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise resulting in absence of process of law – Appellant discharged from criminal proceedings. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is aggrieved by order dated 08.04.2025 passed by Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court in CRR No.450 of 2025. By said order, challenge made by appellant to order framing charge against him under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 16.12.2024 has been turned down.
Findings of Court:
There is no material whatsoever indicating any act of instigation or incitement or abetment by the appellant. The suicide was stated to have been committed in the morning of 07.05.2024. No material whatsoever as regards the proximity between the meeting of the appellant and the deceased, and his committing suicide is available on record. It, thus, will have to be held that the requirements of Section 107 of the Penal Code are not satisfied in the present case.
Result : Criminal appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The Court held that for a charge under Section 306 IPC (read with 34), there must be direct evidence of instigation or mens rea; mere allegations are insufficient. (!) (!) - Instigation must be a positive act, direct or indirect, with proximate nexus to the suicide; mere harassment or non-specific conduct without clear instigation is inadequate. (!) (!) - The Court reiterated that in certain circumstances, including unambiguous lack of offence on face value of material, the High Court can quash proceedings to secure ends of justice (R.P. Kapur; Bhajan Lal). (!) - The material must show a direct or indirect act of instigation in close proximity to the suicide; if not, the charges cannot be sustained. (!) (!) - The decision clarifies that even if there are allegations of illicit relations, without clear mens rea and instigation, the charge under 306 IPC cannot be sustained. (!) (!) - The High Court’s order framing the charge was quashed; the appellant discharged; trial of others may proceed independently. (!) (!) - The judgment cites Prakash and others (supra) and Jayedeepsinh Chavda (2024) reinforcing need for explicit mens rea and proximate incitement. (!) (!) - The judgment emphasizes that the presence of clear mens rea is essential; it cannot be presumed from surrounding circumstances. (!) - Instigation defined as goad, urge, provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act; proximity to the act is required. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial facts about the case and charges framed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant and respondent. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis and reasoning regarding the charge. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. final decision to quash the proceedings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court1[For short, “the High Court”] in CRR No.450 of 2025. By the said order, the challenge made by the appellant to the order framing charge against him under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[For short, “the Penal Code”] on 16.12.2024 has been turned down.
3. As per the First Information Report dated 07.10.2024, information was received of the death of one Komal Sahu by the Police Station In-charge at Pipariya Police Station. The death had occurred on account of hanging from a Babool tree in the village. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was on account of ‘Asphyxia’. Investigation was thereafter undertaken and a Special Investigation Team was formed for that purpose. After receiving a report from the Investigating Team, final report came to be filed on 05.12.2024. As per the final report, there was no factual evidence noted of the deceased being murdered. However, evidence was found that the death had occurred on account of suicide by hanging. As per the statements of various witnesses, the wife of the deceased Revati Bai had insulted Komal several times in front of the appellant. The appellant and Revati Bai had illicit relations and, hence, it was stated that the deceased had no option but to commit suicide. Accordingly, the final report named the appellant as the first accused while Revati Bai was named as the second accused.
4. On 16.12.2024, the following charge came to be framed:
Alternative to this
“You on 06.05.2024 and 07.05.2024 between 06.00 to 11.30 PM at central gram: Dharampura, Station: Piapriya, District-Kabirdham, Chattisgarh, along with co-accused Revati Bai together with common intention tortured and abetted deceased Komal Sahu to commit suicide resulting which Komal Sahu committed suicide by hanging and through this you have such an act which is punishable under section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code and this court has taken cognizance of this act”
5. The appellant being aggrieved by the framing of the said charge filed a revision application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 20233[For short, “the BNSS ”] for challenging the said order. It was urged that from the material collected by the prosecution it could not be said that the appellant had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Thus, no offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code had been made out. The prosecution opposed the aforesaid application. The High Court after hearing all the parties held that on the basis of statements of various family members of the deceased, it was clear that on account of the behaviour of the accused persons, the deceased was annoyed and, hence, committed suicide. It accordingly dismissed the revision application by holding that, prima facie, the ingredients of in the alternative /34 of the Penal Code had been satisfied and there was sufficient material to proceed with the charge. Thus, by the order dated 08.04.2025 the revision application came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant has raised a challenge to the said order in this appeal.
For a charge of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation and mens rea must be established; mere allegations are insufficient.
To establish abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or actions compelling the victim to take their life, not merely trivial domestic disputes.
The court held that mere allegations of harassment do not establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without direct evidence of instigation or encouragement.
The assessment of materials at the stage of consideration of charge is different from the appreciation of evidence at the trial stage, and the court must form an opinion based on the available materi....
Abetment of suicide under IPC requires clear mens rea and active instigation, which was not proven in this case.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be direct acts of incitement closely linked to the suicide, and mere denial of marriage does not constitute abetment.
Ingredients of section 306 IPC discussed.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aid by the accused; mere emotional distress or broken relationships do not suffice.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of the accused's intention to instigate the suicide, which was absent in this case.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or a direct act by the accused leading to the victim's suicide; mere relationship discord is insuff....
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
