A mere casual comment made in a heated moment does not constitute instigation for suicide without intent.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 16th day of January, 2026)

The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C No.704 of 2017 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising out of Crime No.797 of 2014 of CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 306 of IPC .

2. The petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant, whose only daughter died at her budding age in an accident. The prosecution case is that, when the de facto complainant had not fully recovered from the grief on account of the death of her daughter, the accused directed her to go to the State Bank of Travancore and to collect the insurance claim of her daughter. When she refused to go to the Bank, in a heat of passion, replied that he had already lost his daughter and hence she also could commit suicide. It is further alleged that because of the above instigation given by the accused, the daughter of the de facto complainant committed suicide during the early morning on 03.10.2011.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a single instance of comment made by the petitioner without any intention to instigate his wife to commit suicide does not constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC . Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against him. 4. Further, according to the learned counsel, the entire dispute between the parties were settled. The 2^nd respondent also filed an affidavit stating that the dispute between the parties was settled and also that they had no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. On a perusal of the FI statement given by the father of the deceased, it also reveals that his daughter was suffering from grief on account of the untimely demise of her only daughter at her budding age, in an accident. On 02.10.2010, the petitioner directed his wife to go to the Bank and collect the insurance amount from the Bank on 04.10.2010. When she replied that she cannot go, the petitioner allegedly made a comment to the effect that ‘ ’.

പറ്റുകില്ലെ(cid:6)ങ്കിൽ നീ പപോയി ചോല്ലെകടി

7. In the FI statement, it is also stated that on hearing the wordly altercation between the petitioner and his wife, one Vinulal intervened and pacified them. It appears that during the early morning on 03.10.2010, she committed suicide.

8. As per the FI statement, there was no other dispute between the petitioner and his wife. The only dispute is the wordly altercation that occurred on 02.10.2010 in respect of collection of the insurance claim of their deceased daughter.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Apex Court inAbhinav Mohan v. State of Maharashtra [2025 KHC Online 6701] , would argued that not every allegation of harassment constitutes abetment of suicide as abatement imposed a mental process of instigating of intentionally aiding a person and proximate prior act of the part of the accused with clear mens rea to commit the offence without which a charge under Section 306 cannot be sustained.

10. From the above comment allegedly made by the petitioner, on no stretch of imagination it can be held that the petitioner had any intention to instigate the petitioner to commit suicide.

11. In the decision in Swami Prahaladdas v. State of M.P [1995 KHC 3306] in paragraph 3, the Apex Court held as follows:

“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