Supreme Court of India
PRAKASH AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 1020
- Decided
- 19 December 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that without a close temporal proximity and clear intent to instigate, the prosecution failed to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, and the appeal was allowed.
Summary
The appellants were charged under Sections 306 and 34 IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of their daughter-in-law, who had committed suicide on 20 March 2015 after a family dispute and a court‑ordered mahalokadalat. The prosecution’s case hinged on the claim that the appellants' words at the mahalokadalat on 17 February 2015 directly caused the victim’s suicide, despite an accidental death report filed on the day of the incident that made no such allegation. The Supreme Court examined whether the required close temporal proximity and clear mens rea for abetment under Section 306 IPC were established. It held that a gap of over a month dissolved any nexus between the alleged instigation and the suicide, and that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants’ intent to push the victim to suicide. Consequently, the Court quashed the trial court and High Court orders and discharged the appellants, finding the continuation of proceedings to be an abuse of process.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved a proximate nexus and mens rea required under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 to establish abetment of suicide.
- Whether the time gap of more than one month between the alleged instigation at the mahalokadalat and the victim's suicide defeats the element of close proximity.
- Whether the FIR, filed five days after the accidental death report, can be relied upon to sustain the charge of abetment.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 227
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 306, s. 34
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month between the incident and the commission of suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Disputes between the victim, and her husband-appellant no.1 and in-laws – Victim tortured mentally and physically over demand of money at her matrimonial house –
Subjects
Abetment of suicideDirect or indirect acts of instigationClear nexus between suicide and instigationProximate to time of suicideIntention to instigate suicideAct of suicideDirect result of the words utteredMahalokadalatCommission of suicideTortured mentally and physically over demand of moneyApplication seeking discharge from caseClose proximity between positive act of instigation by accused person and commission of suicide by victimMens rea to abet commission of suicideSufficient time to dissolve nexus or proximate link between two actsAbsence of sufficient materialInterpretation of s.306 read with s.107 IPCIngredients and principles of s.306 IPC
Judgment
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1160 : 2024 INSC 1020
Prakash and Others
v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 5543 of 2024)
20 December 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting
the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was
a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the
mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month
between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the commission
of suicide.
Headnotes†
Penal Code – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Disputes
between the victim, and her husband-appellant no.1 and
in-laws – Victim tortured mentally and physically over
demand of money at her matrimonial house – Victim started
residing separately, at her paternal house with her child –
Subsequently criminal case against the husband and in-laws
under the 2005 Act – During pendency, mahalokadalat held
during which appellants allegedly refused to cohabitate with
the victim or accept her or her child or settle the proceedings
initiated by victim – Month later, victim committed suicide –
Accidental Death Report by brother of the deceased stating
that his sister committed suicide by hanging herself – Five
days later, complaint by the mother of deceased against the
appellants – On basis thereof, FIR registered u/ss.306 and
34 against the husband and in-laws, and chargesheet filed –
Application seeking discharge from case by the appellants –
Rejected by the trial court – Said order upheld by the High
Court – Correctness:
Held: There must be a close proximity between the positive act of
instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide
by the victim – Close proximity should be such as to create a
*Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1161
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide –
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 – On facts, clear gap of over a month between the incident
at the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide – Gap of
over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the
proximate link between the two acts, and render the instigation or
incitement by the appellants, nugatory – Courts below erroneously
accepted the prosecution story that the act of suicide by the
deceased was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants
at the mahalokadalat – In the Accidental Death Report lodged on
the day of the incident, no mention about any involvement of the
appellants in the suicidal death of the deceased and no mention
about the incident that had occurred at the mahalokadalat – These
facts alleged for the first time in the FIR lodged five days after
the incident – Reasoning given by the High Court for refusal to
discharge the appellants completely perfunctory – Prosecution
failed to prima facie establish that the appellants had any intention
to instigate or aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide – No
doubt, a young woman of 25 years lost her life in an unfortunate
incident, however, in the absence of sufficient material to show that
the appellants had intended by their words to push the deceased
to commit suicide, continuation of criminal proceedings would
result in an abuse of process of law – Thus, the orders passed by
the courts below quashed and set aside – Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – s.227. [Paras 32-38]
Penal Code – ss.306 and 107 – Abetment of suicide –
Interpretation of s.306 read with s.107 – Ingredients and
principles of s.306 – Elucidated. [Paras 13-28]
Case Law Cited
Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others,
2023 INSC 1035 : (2024) 1 SCC 417 : ; Gurjit Singh v. State of
Punjab, 2019 INSC 1281 : [2019] 14 SCR 232 : (2020) 14 SCC
264; State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu and Others, 2019 INSC
1164 : [2019] 13 SCR 489 : (2019) 10 SCC 188; Madan Mohan
Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2010 INSC 521 : [2010] 10
1162 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628; Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi
v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 INSC 534 : [2008] 6 SCR 1116 :
(2008) 10 SCC 394 ; Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of
M.P., 2002 INSC 250 : [2002] 3 SCR 668 : (2002) 5 SCC 371;
S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, 2010 INSC
506 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : (2010) 12 SCC 190; Jayedeepsinh
Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat, 2024 INSC
960 : [2024] 12 SCR 439 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679; Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 INSC 515 : [2001] Supp. 4
SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618; Ude Singh and Others v. State of
Haryana, 2019 INSC 810 : [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC
301; Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 149 : [2024]
2 SCR 830 : (2024) 3 SCC 573 – referred to.
List of Acts
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Penal
Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Abetment of suicide; Direct or indirect acts of instigation; Clear
nexus between suicide and instigation; Proximate to time of suicide;
Intention to instigate suicide; Act of suicide; Direct result of the
words uttered; Mahalokadalat; Commission of suicide; Tortured
mentally and physically over demand of money; Application
seeking discharge from case; Close proximity between positive
act of instigation by accused person and commission of suicide
by victim; Mens rea to abet commission of suicide; Sufficient time
to dissolve nexus or proximate link between two acts; Absence
of sufficient material; Interpretation of s.306 read with s.107 IPC;
Ingredients and principles of s.306 IPC.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
5543 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRWP No. 246 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Niteen V. Gaware, Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Vatsalya Vigya, Advs.
for the Appellants.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1163
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Sourav Singh,
Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 17th October
2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 246 of 2021, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the
Writ Petition preferred by the present appellants. The Writ Petition had
been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 24th December
2020 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar wherein the learned Assistant Sessions Judge
had rejected the application preferred by the appellants seeking
discharge from the charges punishable under Sections 306 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,1 pending against the appellants
before the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner2 in
Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015.
3. The facts which lead to the present appeal are as under:-
3.1. On 20 th March 2015, the Police Station, Ashvi, District
Ahmednagar, received an Accidental Death Report (Khabar)
by one Vikas Bhausaheb Sanap who stated that on the same
day at about 10 a.m. his sister Jyoti Nagre,3 aged about 25
years, had committed suicide by hanging herself from the iron
pipe situated in the bathroom of her paternal house where she
had been residing for the past two years.
3.2. Subsequently, on 25th March 2015, Mrs. Sindhubai Bhausaheb
Sanap (Respondent No.2), mother of the deceased, lodged a
complaint at the said police station. According to the complaint,
1 For short, ‘the IPC’.
2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’.
3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’.
1164 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the deceased had been married to Prakash, Appellant No. 1,
on 19th November 2009, after which she had given birth to twin
sons. After marriage, disputes arose between the deceased and
her husband and in-laws from time to time, with the complainant
alleging that the deceased had been mentally and physically
tortured at her matrimonial house. However, on the intervention
of the complainant and her family, the disputes were patched
up and the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home.
Soon thereafter, owing to persisting acrimony at her matrimonial
home, the deceased and Appellant No.1 started residing
separately, away from the matrimonial home, in Lonikand,
Pune. It was further alleged that on 8th August 2013, Appellant
No.1 had physically abused the deceased over a demand of
Rs.20 lakhs for the purchase of a new plot of land. After this
incident, the deceased came to reside at her paternal house.
Subsequently, a criminal case being Criminal M.A. No. 175 of
2013 came to be filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Sangamner against the husband and in-laws of the
deceased under Sections 12, 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During the pendency
of the criminal case, a mahalokadalat was held in the court in
Sangamner on 17th February 2015, which was attended by the
complainant, the deceased and the present appellants, among
others. The complainant (Respondent No.2) alleged that on the
said day, the present appellants told the deceased that they
were not ready to reach a compromise in the matter and further
that she would not be allowed to go back to her matrimonial
house. The deceased was further advised by Appellant No.1
to re-marry as he would not accept her or her children at the
matrimonial house. Subsequent to this incident, the deceased
would frequently say that she would commit suicide as her life
no longer held any meaning. Thereafter, on 20th March 2015,
the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from an
iron pipe with the aid of a saree.
3.3. On the basis of the complaint, a First Information Report4 being
Crime No.12 of 2015 was lodged under Sections 306 and 34 of
the IPC against Prakash Pandurang Nagare (Appellant No.1),
4 For short, ‘FIR’
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1165
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
Pandurang Kundlik Nagare (Appellant No.2), the father-in-law
of the deceased, and Pradip Pandurang Nagare (Appellant
No.3), the brother-in-law of the deceased at the aforementioned
police station.
3.4. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to
be filed on 28th September 2015.
3.5. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed an application
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19735
before the trial court, praying to be discharged from the said
case. The trial court, by its order dated 24th December 2020,
rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that there was
sufficient ground to proceed against the appellants.
3.6. Being aggrieved further, the appellants preferred a Criminal Writ
Petition before the High Court for setting aside of the aforesaid
order of the trial court. The High Court, vide the impugned
judgment and order, dismissed the writ petition finding it to be
devoid of merit.
3.7. Being aggrieved thereby, this present appeal.
4. This Court while issuing notice on 30th January 2023 had stayed the
criminal proceedings bearing Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 pending
before the trial court, until further orders.
5. We have heard Mr. Niteen V. Gaware, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel
and Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-State of Maharashtra.
6. Mr. Gaware, learned counsel, submitted that there was a delay of five
days in lodging the FIR. He submitted that although an Accidental
Death Report (Khabar) had been filed on the day of the incident
by the brother of the deceased, there is not a whisper about any
harassment caused by the appellants to the deceased. It also did
not disclose any involvement of or instigation by the appellants which
might have led the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted
that the FIR was an afterthought and no satisfactory explanation has
been offered to justify the inordinate delay.
5 For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’
1166 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7. Mr. Gaware further submitted that it is not a case of prosecution
that the appellants spoke in such a manner which would amount to
abetment of suicide. He further submitted that the appellants met
the deceased only on the day of the Mahalokadalat which was held
on 17th February 2014 where Appellant No. 1 is alleged to have told
her that he did not wish to cohabitate with the deceased any longer
and he did not wish to settle the proceedings initiated by her. Merely
because the deceased was depressed about her situation, it would
not be enough to convict the appellants, particularly since, prima
facie, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled.
8. Mr. Gaware submitted that the deceased had been residing separately
from the appellants since 8th August 2013. In the intervening period
between the date of separation and the date of the incident, the
appellants had interacted with the deceased only on one occasion
that is on the date of the Mahalokadalat which was held on 17th
February 2014. He submitted that the FIR wrongly mentions the
date of the mahalokadalat to be 17th February 2015. It is submitted
that the deceased committed suicide after over a year had passed.
However, the courts below did not consider this aspect or look into
the roznama of court proceedings which clearly showed the date on
which the mahalokadalat had been held. Therefore, he submitted that
in view of the time gap between the alleged meeting and the date
of suicide, there is no immediate instigation or abetment to commit
suicide which can be attributed to the appellants.
9. Mr. Gaware placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the
cases of Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and
Others,6 Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab,7 State of West Bengal
v. Indrajit Kundu and Others,8 Madan Mohan Singh v. State of
Gujarat and Another,9 Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State
of Maharashtra10 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of
M.P.11. He submitted in view of the material placed on record and
6 2023 INSC 1035 : (2024) 1 SCC 417
7 2019 INSC 1281 : [2019] 14 SCR 232 : (2020) 14 SCC 264
8 2019 INSC 1164 : [2019] 13 SCR 489 : (2019) 10 SCC 188
9 2010 INSC 521 : [2010] 10 SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628
10 2008 INSC 534 : [2008] 6 SCR 1116 : (2008) 10 SCC 394
11 2002 INSC 250 : [2002] 3 SCR 668 : (2002) 5 SCC 371
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1167
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
the authorities cited, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the
appellants deserve to be discharged of all charges.
10. Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel, submitted
that no interference is warranted in the concurrent findings of the
trial court and the High Court. He submitted that there is sufficient
material against the appellants to proceed against them. He further
submitted that in view of the allegations levelled against the appellants
and the evidence collected by the investigating agency, it is not a fit
case to allow this appeal. Mr. Dharmadhikari, therefore, prayed for
the dismissal of this appeal.
11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the
material placed on record.
12. The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for consideration are as
under:
“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.
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.
Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the time
of the commission of an act, does anything in order to
1168 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
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.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions
of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or
intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring
a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would
require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another
person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of
the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a
charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment
also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the
accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to
commit suicide.
16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
and Another,12 had an occasion to consider the scope of Section
306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential for abetment,
as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. It observed as follows:
“16. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the
Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known
12 2010 INSC 506 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : (2010) 12 SCC 190
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1169
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
and requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide”
means “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short,
a person committing suicide must commit it by himself,
irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving
his object of killing himself.
………..
18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence,
considering that the successful offender is beyond the
reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section
309 IPC.
……….
21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh v.
State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
1157] In Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 1157] the allegations levelled were as under:
(SCC p. 731, para 1)
“1. … My mother-in-law and husband and sister-
in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed
me. They beat me and abused me. My husband
Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has
illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because
of these reasons and being harassed I want to
die by burning.”
The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a
definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of
abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant
under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the
aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased
is unsustainable in law.
………..
23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 :
1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that: (SCC
p. 90, para 17)
1170 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“17. … The court should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each
case and the evidence adduced in the trial for
the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted
out to the victim had in fact induced her to end
the life by committing suicide. If it [appears] to
the court that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord
and differences in domestic life quite common
to the society to which the victim belonged and
such petulance, discord and differences were
not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit suicide,
the conscience of the court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused
charged of abetting the offence of suicide should
be found guilty.”
24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment.
The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words
“instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there
should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the
doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability
pattern is different from the other. Each person has his
own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing
with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances.
25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating
a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused
to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio
of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to
convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1171
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
suicide seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he committed suicide.”
17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the accused
to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be sustained. This Court further observed that the intention of the
legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear
that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also
requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no other option and that act must have been intended
to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
However, this Court has cautioned that since each person reacts
differently to the same provocation depending on a variety of factors,
it is impossible to lay down a straightjacket formula to deal with such
cases. Therefore, every such case has to be decided on the basis
of its own facts and circumstances.
18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda
and Others v. State of Gujarat,13 this Court has relied on S.S.
Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply
be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly
discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing
abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention
to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled.
This Court observed as follows:
“18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a
well-established legal principle that the presence of clear
mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential.
Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an
accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must
demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that
led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of
mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must
13 2024 INSC 960 : [2024] 12 SCR 439 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679
1172 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the
foundational requirement for establishing abetment under
the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a
deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute
to the act of suicide.”
19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial
element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a similar nature,
this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,14
laid down the parameters of what would be constituted to be an act
of instigation. This Court observed as follows:-
“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
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.”
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is
to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an
act”. It has been held that in order 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, however, a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court
went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be
said to be instigation.
14 2001 INSC 515 : [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1173
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
21. Relying on the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), this
Court in the case of Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana15
observed as follows:
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must
be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that
the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the
context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes
of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case
of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased
by another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the person
to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to
be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person
has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not,
could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances
of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another, the consideration would
be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act
of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the
decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive
and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to
commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused
guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if
the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of
conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased
perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the
case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC.
15 2019 INSC 810 : [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC 301
1174 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-
esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually
draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be
held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens
rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be
examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of
the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such
nature where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may
fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However,
if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased
by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was
provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of
suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of
human behaviour, each case is required to be examined
on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding
factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the
accused and the deceased.
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be
affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact
of one›s action on the mind of another carries several
imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently
by different persons; and so far a particular person›s
reaction to any other human›s action is concerned, there
is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess
the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the
question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to
be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or
urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the
ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl
could also vary for a variety of factors, including those
of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence,
each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts
and circumstances.”
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or
indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It has been
held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1175
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex
attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent
and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission
of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels
the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such
an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
It was further clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of
the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to
the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It was further held that
if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused
intended nothing more than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a
particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide,
however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased
by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a
particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held
that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and
could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with
differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt
with its own facts and circumstances.
23. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), the appellant
before this Court was charged with having abetted the suicide by
his brother-in-law (sister’s husband). The prosecution story was that
there were strained relations between the deceased and his wife
who at the material time was staying with the appellant therein. On
25th July, 1998 the deceased went to the appellant to bring back his
wife. There was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased
who came back alone. The deceased told his brothers and other
acquaintances that the appellant had threatened and abused him
by using filthy words. On 27th July, 1998 the deceased was found
dead. The deceased left a suicide note which showed his disturbed
state of mind but otherwise he blamed the appellant for the suicide.
The appellant’s petition for quashing of the charge-sheet filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the High Court which led him
to file an appeal before this Court which came to be allowed. While
taking note of the disturbed state of mind of the deceased as was
evident from the suicide note and the lack of intention on the part
of the accused to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased,
1176 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the Court held that there was a time gap of 48 hours between the
abusive language being used and the commission of suicide. As such,
owing to the passage of 48 hours, giving the deceased enough time
to reflect, there was no proximate link between the words uttered
and the act of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
“8. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3)
SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943] the appellant was charged
for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that
the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked to
the deceased “to go and die”. This Court was of the view
that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased
“to go and die” were not even prima facie enough to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC
731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the appellant was charged for
an offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon
the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as
under: (SCC p. 731, para 1)
“My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-
law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed
me. They beat me and abused me. My husband
Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has
illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because
of these reasons and being harassed I want to
die by burning.”
10. This Court, considering the definition of “abetment”
under Section 107 IPC, found that the charge and
conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306
is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment
of the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the
ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of
the deceased.
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9
SCC 618] this Court was considering the charge framed
and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC
on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive
Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1177
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband
and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her
husband who had said that she could go wherever she
wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene
on herself and had set herself on fire. Acquitting the
accused this Court said: (SCC p. 620)
“A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires
to the court that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord
and differences in domestic life quite common
to the society to which the victim belonged and
such petulance, discord and differences were
not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit suicide,
the conscience of the court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused
charged for abetting the offence of suicide should
be found guilty.”
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts
below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story
that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of
the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-1998 wherein it
is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language
and had reportedly told the deceased “to go and die”.
For this, courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan,
brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 CrPC
when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from
the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant
had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The
statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161
CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going
through the statement, we find that he has not stated that
the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked
him “to go and die”. Even if we accept the prosecution
story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and
die”, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of
1178 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes incitement
or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action
or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea,
therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a
quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken
to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and
emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said
to have been told to the deceased were on 25-7-1998
ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging
on 27-7-1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken
the abusive language seriously, he had enough time
in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it
cannot be said that the abusive language, which had
been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998 drove the
deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased
on 27-7-1998 is not proximate to the abusive language
uttered by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that
the deceased committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would
itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of
the quarrel taken place on 25-7-1998 when it is alleged
that the appellant had used the abusive language and
also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had
escaped notice of the courts below.
………….
14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show
that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One
plausible reason could be that the deceased was without
any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in
drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt
Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the
suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the
handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt
Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement
under Section 161 CrPC before the investigation officer.
She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking
wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that
on 26-7-1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1179
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
condition and was abusing her and other members of the
family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that
the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant
had taken place on 25-7-1998 and if the deceased
came back to the house again on 26-7-1998, it cannot
be said that the suicide by the deceased was the
direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on
25-7-1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances
independently, we are clearly of the view that the
ingredients of “abetment” are totally absent in the
instant case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It
is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always
remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge
that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly
appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of
his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had
ensued on 25-7-1998 where the appellant is stated to have
used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials
on record and facts and circumstances of the case into
consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion
that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is
responsible for his death.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. It could thus be seen that this Court held that both the courts below
had erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by
the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken
place on 25th July 1998 wherein it was alleged that the appellant
therein had used abusive language and had reportedly told the
deceased ‘to go and die’. It was held that even if one accepts the
prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and
die’, that itself did not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. This
Court held that it was common knowledge that the words uttered
in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment could not be taken to
be uttered with mens rea. It has been held further that the alleged
abusive words were said to have been told to the deceased on 25th
July 1998 during a quarrel and the deceased was found hanging on
27th July, 1998. This Court held that if the deceased had taken the
abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think
1180 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
over and reflect and therefore, it could not be said that the abusive
language which had been used by the appellant on 25th July 1998
drove the deceased to commit suicide on 27th July 1998. It has
been held that the suicide by the deceased was not proximate to
the abusive language used two days prior. Additionally this Court
held that a plain reading of the suicide note made it clear that the
deceased was in great stress and depressed and the suicide note
also clearly suggested that it was not the handiwork of a man with
a sound mind and sense. As such, this Court held that there was
no material to establish that the accused had abetted the suicide
committed by the deceased.
25. Relying on the decision in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar (supra), this Court in the case of Gurjit Singh (supra) set
aside the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC as it was clear
from the evidence on record that there was a time gap of about two
months between the last visit of the deceased to her parents with
regard to the illegal demand for money by the accused-appellant
and the date of commission of suicide by the deceased. As such,
this Court held that there was nothing on record to show that there
was a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the
illegal demand made by the accused-appellant. This Court observed
as follows:
“36. It could further be seen from the evidence on
record that the time gap between the last visit of the
deceased to her parents with regard to the illegal
demand and the date of commission of suicide is
about two months. As such, there is nothing on record
to show that there was a proximate nexus between
the commission of suicide and the illegal demand
made by the appellant. In Sanju v. State of M.P. [Sanju
v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
1141] this Court found that there was time gap of 48
hours between the accused telling the deceased “to
go and die” and the deceased “committing suicide”.
As such, this Court held that there was no material
to establish that the accused had abetted the suicide
committed by the deceased.”
(emphasis supplied)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1181
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or
incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of
the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified
on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the
act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to
each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide
by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the
accused person.
27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra) reiterated that the
act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity
that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which
the person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held
that the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit
suicide had occurred two weeks prior and even the suicide note had
been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased
committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act
had been done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity
to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
“11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third
respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct,
it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated
the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment
of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her
husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him
by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly
happened more than two weeks before the date of
suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done
by the appellants in close proximity to the date of
suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts
of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit
suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent
for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence
punishable under Section 306 IPC was not made out
against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their
prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process
of law.”
(emphasis supplied)
1182 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana,16
observed as follows:-
“20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano
Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred
decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section
306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45)
“45. … It is also to be borne in mind that in
cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must
be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement
to the commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without there being
any positive action proximate to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused
which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section
306IPC is not sustainable.”
(emphasis supplied)
29. Having discussed the law on the subject, we now proceed to consider
the facts of the present case in view of the established principles.
30. As per the version of the complainant, the following facts have
emerged:
i. Appellant No. 1 got married to the deceased on 19th November
2009.
ii. Disputes arose thereafter, and the parties started residing
separately from 8th August 2013 with the deceased residing at
her paternal house with her child.
iii. A mahalokadalat was held at the court in Sangamner on 17th
February 2015 during which the appellants are alleged to have
refused to cohabitate with the deceased or accept her or her
child at her matrimonial house or settle the proceedings initiated
by the deceased.
iv. On 20th March 2015, the deceased committed suicide.
16 2024 INSC 149 : [2024] 2 SCR 830 : (2024) 3 SCC 573
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1183
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
31. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), this Court,
under similar circumstances, had quashed the chargesheet under
Section 306 of the IPC against the accused-appellant. A factor that
had weighed with the Court in the said case was that there was a time
gap of 48 hours being the alleged instigation and the commission of
suicide. This Court held that the deceased was a victim of his own
conduct, unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued between him
and the appellant, 48 hours prior to the commission of his suicide.
32. In the case at hand, taking the allegations in the FIR at face value,
the incident at the mahalokadalat had occurred on 17th February
2015, while the deceased had committed suicide on 20th March
2015. There is a clear gap of over a month between the incident at
the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide. We therefore find
that the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution
story that the act of suicide by the deceased was a direct result of
the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat.
33. We also find that the date of occurrence of the mahalokadalat is
disputed. The appellants have vehemently argued before the trial
court and the High Court that the mahalokadalat had not been held
on the 17th February 2015 but instead had been held about a year
earlier, and that the date of the mahalokadalat as mentioned in the
FIR and in the statements of the witnesses, is factually incorrect.
If this submission is to be accepted, the time gap between the two
incidents would widen even further.
34. However, we do not wish to go into that issue. Even if we take
the date of the mahalokadalat to be 17th February 2015 to be the
factually correct one, there is enough gap between the two incidents
to render the instigation or incitement by the appellants, nugatory.
The cardinal principle of the subject-matter at hand is that there must
be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the
accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim. The
close proximity should be such as to create a clear nexus between
the act of instigation and the act of suicide. As was held in the case
of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), if the deceased had
taken the words of the appellants seriously, a time gap between
the two incidents would have given enough time to the deceased to
think over and reflect on the matter. As such, a gap of over a month
1184 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the proximate link
between the two acts.
35. Apart from that, although an Accidental Death Report was lodged
on the day of the incident by the deceased’s brother, there is no
mention about any involvement of the appellants in the suicidal death
of the deceased. Further, there is no mention about the incident that
had occurred at the mahalokadalat which had put the deceased in a
state of depression such that she frequently spoke about committing
suicide. These facts are alleged for the first time in the FIR which
was lodged five days after the incident.
36. We are of the considered view that the reasoning given by the High
Court for refusal to discharge the appellants is completely perfunctory.
The High Court observed that there is no allegation about any
harassment or cruelty meted out by the appellants to the deceased
in the Accidental Death Report, however, held that the allegations
in the FIR could not be overlooked and the Accidental Death Report
and the statements made in the Accidental Death enquiry would be
a matter of trial. The High Court also took note of the disputed date
of the mahalokadalat but held that incorrect mentioning of the date
of the mahalokadalat in the FIR would not be a ground to discharge
the appellants, considering the state of mind of the complainant, the
deceased’s mother.
37. We further find that the prosecution has failed to prima facie establish
that the appellants had any intention to instigate or aid or abet the
deceased to commit suicide. No doubt that a young woman of 25
years has lost her life in an unfortunate incident. However, in the
absence of sufficient material to show that the appellants had intended
by their words to push the deceased into such a position that she
was left with no other option but to commit suicide, continuation of
criminal proceedings against the appellants would result in an abuse
of process of law and as such, we are inclined to allow the appeal.
38. In the result, we pass the following order:-
i. The present appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad passed on 17th
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1185
Prakash and Others v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
October 2022 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 246 of 2021 and the
order of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner dated 24th
December, 2020 in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 are quashed
and set aside; and
iii. The appellants are discharged from Sessions Case No. 75 of
2015 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner. Their
bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
39. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Abetment of suicide"Sign in to search