The absence of provable instigation or direct involvement by the accused in the suicide precludes criminal liability under Section 306 IPC.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner is accused No.4 in Sessions Case No. 2284 of 2022 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara (Crime No. 799 of 2019 of Neyyattinkara Police Station). The offence alleged against the revision petitioner and the other accused is punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC . The Neyyattinkara Police registered the above crime based on the statement given by the son of the deceased, late Sri.Mary John on 07.06.2019. The Police conducted investigation and submitted the final report under Section 173 Cr.PC before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara on 25.03.2021 seeking prosecution of all the accused, including the revision petitioner, for having committed the offence under read with Section 34 of .

2. I have heard Sri.V.G.Arun, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The charge against the accused as narrated in the order dated 06.07.2024 in CMP No.54/2024 in S.C No.2284/20222 reads thus:

“The deceased Mary John, under the impression that Neyyattinkara Police has not taken action based on complaint filed by him that accused 1 and 2 harassed his mother physically and by uttering obscene words and also due to the obstructions caused by A1 to A4 continuously by obstructing his ways and also by threatening him, due to the above mental agony after writing a suicidal note, committed suicide by hanging on 07.06.2019 at a time between 8 a.m and 5.45 p.m at his house.”(sic)

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations do not attract the offence under Section 306 IPC . It is submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the revision petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court. The learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner is entitled to discharge.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations in the final report along with the materials produced by the prosecution, prima facie show that the revision petitioner had abetted the commission of suicide by Sri.Mary John. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the allegations levelled against the revision petitioner in the final report do not make out the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC .

6. Section 306 of IPC reads thus:

“306. Abetment of suicide.— If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

7. Abetment is defined in Section 107 of IPC , which is extracted below:

“107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.— A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Illustration

A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that