Holding

An accusation of disapproval or a casual remark, without proximate and positive act of instigation, does not satisfy the elements of abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC.

Summary

The appellant, Smt. Laxmi Das, mother of Babu Das, was charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC for abetment of suicide of Souma Pal. The High Court upheld the charge against her, finding prima facie material that she had allegedly told the deceased she need not be alive. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the statutory requirements of Sections 306 and 107 IPC, emphasizing the need for direct or indirect instigation, proximate timing, and clear mens rea. Relying on recent precedents, the Court held that the appellant's disapproval and alleged remarks were too remote and did not constitute instigation or positive aid. Consequently, the Court quashed the charges against Laxmi Das and allowed the appeal, while leaving proceedings against other accused untouched.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant can be held liable for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC.
Whether the appellant's alleged disapproval and remarks amount to direct or indirect instigation proximate to the suicide.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 227
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 109, s. 306, s. 34

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant, can be charged with abetment of suicide of the deceased, under Section 306 of the Penal Code (IPC). Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 & s.107 – Abetment to Suicide – Instigation – Requirements to prove abetment of Held: When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide – After referring to Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde

Subjects

Abetment of SuicideInstigationMens ReaProximity

Judgment

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 825 : 2025 INSC 86

Laxmi Das
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017)
21 January 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant, can be charged with abetment of suicide
of the deceased, under Section 306 of the Penal Code (IPC).

Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 & s.107 – Abetment to Suicide –
Instigation – Requirements to prove abetment of suicide –
Explained – Charges quashed:
Held: When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is
clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close
proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens
rea to abet the commission of suicide – After referring to Rohini
Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1701, Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra
& Anr. 2024 INSC 1020, Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2001) 9 SCC 618, Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
(2017) 7 SCC 780, it was held that the judgments of the High
Court and the Trial Court are not correct – Even if all evidence on
record, including the chargesheet and the witness statements, are
taken to be correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the
Appellant – The acts of the Appellant are too remote and indirect
to constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC – There is no
allegation against the Appellant of a nature that the deceased
was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of
committing suicide – There needs to be a positive act that creates
an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order
to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC – As such, the charges
under Section 306 & 107 IPC were quashed. [Paras 8-15]

Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment to suicide – Instigation
of suicide – Prerequisites:
* Author
826 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Held: By referring to Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2001) 9 SCC 618, Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
(2017) 7 SCC 780, it was noted that to satisfy the requirement
of instigation, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence
must be capable of being spelt out though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes
instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of
the consequence – A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be
said to be instigation – It was noted that a mere allegation of
harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to
commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.

Case Law Cited
Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and Another
[2024] 7 SCR 1031 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701; Prakash and
Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 INSC 1020;
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 :
(2001) 9 SCC 618 – referred to.
Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017) 7 SCC 780 –
relied on.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

List of Keywords
Abetment of Suicide; Instigation; Mens Rea; Proximity.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
706 of 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2014 and 23.06.2014
of the High Court of Calcutta in CRR No. 1560 and 2012

Appearances for Parties
Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Mrinalini
Mukherjee, Advs. for the Appellant.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 827

Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms. Astha Sharma, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi,
Ms. Shriya Mishra, M/s. Plr Chambers And Co., Subhasish
Bhowmick, Ms. Manisha Pandey, Shubhankar, M.K. Rathor,
Rahul Kushwaha, Reegan S Bel, Ashutosh Singh, Advs. for the
Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the accused Appellant-Smt. Laxmi Das
challenging the impugned order dated 13.06.2014 passed by the High
Court at Calcutta in Criminal Revisional Application, being CRR No.
1560 of 2012, along with an application for quashing, being CRAN
No. 1946 of 2013. By this order, the High Court has quashed the
chargesheet as only against Dilip Das/Accused No. 3 and Subrata
Das/Accused No. 2, while rejecting the application preferred by the
Appellant/Accused No. 4.
2. The facts germane to the present dispute are summarised as below:
2.1 Appellant is the mother of Babu Das/Accused No. 1, who was
allegedly in a love affair with the deceased, Souma Pal. Dilip
Das and Subrata Das are the father and elder brother of Babu
Das respectively (hereinafter collectively “the accused”). All
four were initially accused of abetment of suicide and charged
under Sections 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter “IPC”)
2.2 On 03.07.2008 an unnatural death came to be registered as
the deceased was found dead in the place between the Garia
Railway Station and Narendrapur Railway Station. Consequently
on 06.07.2008, an FIR came to be filed by the deceased’s
uncle/Complainant alleging abetment of suicide against the
accused. The Complainant alleged that the deceased’s family
was unhappy with the love affair between Babu Das and the
deceased, and wanted her to focus on her studies. On account
of this, they requested Babu Das and the other accused persons
to help them put an end to the same, which they refused to
do. It is further alleged that the accused persons refused to
cooperate in finding the deceased when she went missing.
828 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

2.3 Accordingly, a chargesheet came to be filed against the accused
under Sections 306 and 109 read with 34 of the IPC. The
investigation revealed that about three to four years before the
incident, the love affair between the deceased and Babu Das
began. The deceased’s parents were against the relationship
and tried several times to break it off, while the accused persons
encouraged the same. The post mortem report disclosed that
the death was caused by the effect of injuries on impact due
to jumping in front of a train.
2.4 Several neighbours were examined, and accordingly their
statements have come on record. The witnesses allege that a
few days prior to the incident there were altercations between
the deceased and Babu Das, who refused to marry her. The
allegation against the Appellant herein is that she disapproved
of her son/Babu Das marrying the deceased and insulted the
deceased on account of the same.
3. After filing of the chargesheet, the accused persons preferred an
application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) before the Trial Court. On
22.03.2012, the Trial Court rejected the application. Aggrieved, the
Appellant along with Dilip Das and Subrata Das preferred a revisional
and a quashing application before the High Court at Calcutta. The High
Court, vide the impugned order, dismissed the application preferred
by the Appellant and refused to entertain the revision petition and
the quashing application qua her. However, the High Court allowed
the quashing application preferred by Dilip Das and Subrata Das
on the ground that there are no specific allegations against them in
the evidence on record. The operative part of the impugned order
is as follows:
“So far as the petitioner no. 3 (the Appellant) is concerned I
find there are prima facie materials against her. According to
the witness Rejina Khatoon she was told by the deceased
Souma that when Souma told Babu and his mother, the
petitioner no. 3 herein that she could not survive without
Babu they told her that she need not be alive and might
die. Having regard to such statement there is nothing
wrong in framing charge against her for an offence under
Section 306 IPC”
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 829

Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

4. The primary ground taken by the Appellant is that the Appellant
has committed no act against the deceased so as to instigate her
to commit suicide. In fact, even if the allegations of the Appellant
disapproving of their marriage are taken to be true, it does not make
out an offense under Section 306 IPC. Thus, the Appellant states that
all allegations are frivolous and she had no role to play in the suicide.
5. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent/State as well as
the respondent/complainant submitted that there is a case made
out against the Appellant under Section 306 IPC from the evidence
on record and the High Court has rightly dismissed the petition qua
the Appellant.
6. We have carefully perused the record and heard the Learned counsels
for the Appellant, the State and the Complainant.
7. Section 306 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference:
“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.”
We must read Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC which defines
‘Abetment’; and it reads as 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.
830 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time
of the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that
there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity
to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet
the commission of suicide.
9. The Appellant has placed strong reliance upon the judgement
in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and
Another1, wherein this Court has interpreted Sections 306 and 107
IPC together and observed:
“8. Reading these sections together would indicate that
there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or
intentional aid to ‘doing of a thing’. When we apply these
three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused
must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or
engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person
to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally
to aid the person to commit suicide.
…
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence
recorded by the courts below and the legal position
established through statutory and judicial pronouncements,
we are of the view that there is no proximate link between
the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with
appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution
has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the
allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not
played any active role or any positive or direct act to
instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither
the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues
of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer
during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the

1 Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 831

Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no
allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased
to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of
suicide by her husband.”
10. In Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another2,
this Court has further interpreted the offence as below:
“13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first,
an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment
to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a
charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily
be proved that the accused person has contributed to the
suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To
prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three
conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be
satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-
established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide,
it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of
instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which
must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by
the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal
a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and
should put the victim in such a position that he/she would
have no other option but to commit suicide.”
11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to cases that define the act of
‘instigation’. Accordingly, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh3,
this Court observed:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement
of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words
must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the

2 Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 INSC 1020
3 Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618
832 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
present one is not a case where the accused had by his
acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with
no other option except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the
fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences
to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
12. Reliance is to be placed upon Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal
Pradesh4, wherein the Supreme Court held:
“43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are
required to address whether there has been abetment in
committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation
of harassment without any positive action in proximity to
the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that
led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that
is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things
will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere
reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status
of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates
a situation for the victim to put an end to life.”
13. Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial pronouncements,
we find ourselves unable to agree with the High Court and Trial
Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet
and the witness statements, are taken to be correct, there is not an
iota of evidence against the Appellant. We find that the acts of the
Appellant are too remote and indirect to constitute the offense under
Section 306 IPC. There is no allegation against the Appellant of a
nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit
the unfortunate act of committing suicide.
14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant along with her family
did not attempt to put any pressure on the deceased to end the
relationship between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased’s
family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant
expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the

4 Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2017) 7 SCC 780
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 833

Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation
of abetting suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased
to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also
not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act
that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an
edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC.
15. Accordingly, the impugned order is partly set aside to the extent that
the charges against the Appellant herein were upheld by the High
Court. Accordingly, the proceedings in SC Case No. 5(8)10 of 2011
pending on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Sealdah
stands quashed qua the Appellant/Smt. Laxmi Das only. We clarify
that the present case is only confined to the Appellant/Smt. Laxmi
Das, and the Trial Court is free to proceed against the other accused
person i.e. accused Babu Das in accordance with law.
16. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

Result of the case: Appeal Allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)