No Abetment to Suicide if No Proximate Act of Instigation; Six-Year Consensual Relationship Not 'Cheating' Under S.417 IPC: Madras High Court - 2025-10-04

Madras High Court Acquits Man in Suicide Case, Citing Lack of Proximate Instigation

CHENNAI – The Madras High Court has acquitted a man convicted of abetting his former partner's suicide, ruling that a prolonged consensual relationship ending due to parental opposition does not constitute cheating under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), nor does it amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without a direct and proximate act of instigation.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan set aside the 2022 judgment of a Chennai Sessions Court, which had sentenced Rubhan Anthony Rathnaraj to seven years' imprisonment for abetment and one year for cheating. The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary mens rea (criminal intent) for either offence.

Background of the Case

The case originated from the tragic suicide of a woman in February 2018. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Rubhan Anthony Rathnaraj, had been in a six-year romantic and physical relationship with the deceased, his former colleague, under a false promise of marriage. When the appellant got engaged to another woman, allegedly due to parental pressure over religious differences and an age gap, the deceased committed suicide, leaving behind a multi-page suicide note.

The trial court, while acquitting the appellant of rape (Section 376 IPC) after finding the relationship consensual, convicted him for cheating (Section 417) and abetment of suicide (Section 306). The present appeal challenged this conviction.

Key Arguments in Court

• Appellant's Defence: Senior Counsel Abdu Kumar Rajarathinam argued that the relationship was genuine and the inability to marry stemmed from immense parental pressure, including threats of their own suicide. He contended that there was no initial intent to deceive the deceased. It was highlighted that the appellant himself had attempted suicide twice due to his parents' refusal. The defence also questioned the evidentiary value of the lengthy "suicide note," arguing it was more akin to a personal diary and that the prosecution's failure to have the handwriting expert testify denied the appellant an opportunity for cross-examination. Crucially, the defence stressed the absence of any act of instigation proximate to the time of the suicide.

• Prosecution's Stance: The Additional Public Prosecutor, S. Raja Kumar, maintained that the six-year relationship, which included abortions, was sustained on the pretext of marriage. The prosecutor argued that the appellant’s eventual refusal to marry, knowing the religious and age barriers from the outset, constituted a clear case of cheating that led to humiliation and mental agony, directly causing the deceased to take her own life.

High Court's Reasoning and Judgment

Justice Ilanthiraiyan conducted a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal principles to overturn the conviction.

On the Charge of Cheating (Section 417 IPC)

The Court found no evidence to suggest that the appellant had a deceptive intention at the inception of the relationship. It observed, "No prudent person can have physical relationship for a period of six years on the pretext of marriage." The judgment noted that the deceased, an educated adult who was older than the appellant, was fully aware of the consequences of their relationship. The Court emphasized that the deceased only informed her parents about the relationship after the appellant's engagement to another woman was fixed. This, the Court reasoned, indicated a lack of an initial promise to marry that could form the basis of a cheating charge.

"There is absolutely no evidence to show that at the inception of their relationship, the appellant promised that he would marry the deceased... the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 417 of IPC."

On Abetment of Suicide (Section 306 IPC)

In analyzing the abetment charge, the Court leaned heavily on Supreme Court precedents, which establish that conviction requires "a clear mens rea to commit the offence" and "an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide."

The Court found no such direct or proximate act of incitement by the appellant. The evidence showed that the appellant had informed the deceased of his impending marriage on February 1, 2018, and the suicide occurred on February 9, 2018. In the intervening period, there was no evidence of instigation; in fact, messages sent by the deceased to the appellant went unanswered.

"This Court does not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellant proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No act is attributed to the appellant proximate to the time of suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide."

The Court also gave weight to the appellant’s statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where he explained his love for the deceased and the coercive circumstances created by his parents. The judgment pointed out that the trial court failed to properly consider this exculpatory statement.

Final Verdict and Implications

Concluding that the prosecution's case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Rubhan Anthony Rathnaraj of all charges.

The judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the high legal threshold required to prove abetment of suicide. It distinguishes between the emotional fallout of a failed relationship and a deliberate, criminal act of goading or instigating a person to end their life. The ruling underscores that without proof of a direct, positive act with the intention to drive the deceased to suicide, a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.