Illicit Relationship Does Not Establish Mens Rea to abet the Commission of Suicide - Supreme Court.

                                                                  

            The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court of Chattisgarh and accordingly quashed charge framed against the appellant under Section 306 by the learned Session Judge due to lack of element of instigation in material on record. The appellant was charged of the offence for abetment of suicide of one Komal due to humiliation and alleged illicit relationship between Komal’s wife and appellant.

        The Court said even if allowed to  proceed in the premises of illicit relationship, the clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide is absent [Balaji Jaiswal vs State Of Chattisgarh And Another].

 BRIEF CASE FACTS

            First Information Report was received by Police on 7.10.2024 that one Komal Sahu has died by hanging from a tree in the village. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was on account of “Asphyxia”. However, evidence was fund that the death had occurred on account of suicide by hanging. There was no suicide note.

            As per the statements of various witnesses, wife of the deceased, Revati Bai had insulted Komal several times in front of appellant. The appellant and Revati Bai had illicit relations. Unable to bear the humiliation by his own wife, deceased committed suicide. Therefore, the appellant was named as the first accused and Revati Bai as second accused for committing abetment to commit suicide together with common intention under Section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code.

            The appellant being aggrieved by the framing of charge under Section 306, filed revision application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for challenging the said order

            He urged that materials collected by the prosecution, cannot be said that appellant had committed offence of abetment of suicide of the deceased.

            The High Court after hearing all the parties and statement of various family members of the deceased held that the deceased was annoyed and, hence, committed suicide due to behaviour of the accused person and accordingly dismissed the revision application by holding that the ingredients of Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code had been satisfied and there was suffiecient material to proceed with the charge.

 

SUBMISSIONS

Mr. Anand P. Pande, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even after taking all the material that forms part of the charge sheet cumulatively, the same was insufficient to charge the appellant under Section 306 of IPC.

            There was no allegation against the appellant that on account of some proximate ac committed by him, Komal was led to commit suicide – learned counsel submitted.

Learned Counsel also submitted that the allegation of an affair between the appellant and the wife of the deceased were hearsay in nature. Appellant’s counsel placed on the decisions in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs State of M.P  (2002) to support his contention.

Ms. Ankita Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State of Chattisgarh opposed the submissions of appellant to say that the conduct of the appellant indicating an illicit relationship with the wife of Komal was conduct that amounted to abetment of suicide. Statments of witnesses indicated that Revati Bai used to humiliate Komal that led to commit suicide.

            Learned counsel submitted that the absence of any suicide note was not very material at this stage because the consistent statements by family members of the deceased indicated that due to illicit relationship and humiliation, Komal had no other option but to commit suicide.

            Trial Court was, thus, justified and the appellant ought to face the said charge during trial.

The High Court refused to quash the proceedings and hence the impugned order does not call for any interference – Counsel submitted.

Read also: Points of Determination should be framed even in Ex Parte Suit - Supreme Court

 

OBSERVATIONS AND DECISION

 

On the perusal of the entire documentary material on record that forms part of the charge sheet, relevant  factual aspects and settled legal principles, the Hon’ble Supreme Court viewed that the prayer made by the appellant deserved to be granted and criminal proceedings be quashed. Accordingly, Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the following observations –

Where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence as alleged, the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to abuse of the process of the Court or that the quashing of such proceedings would secure the ends of justice.

Even after taking all allegations made in the First Information Report or complaint at their face value and accepting them in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence, the proceedings can be quashed.

            The top Court referred to the decision in Prakash and others vs The State of Maharashtra and another (2024)  to say that in order to sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. There must be 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 must 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.

            The Supreme Court cited  a case of similar nature i.e Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chattisgarh (2001) which laid down the essential constituents of an act of instigation. It held,  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.

            Thus applying the law as held in Ramesh Kumar’s case, Court reiterated, a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

According to statements and general allegations of illicit relationship between Revati bai and appellant,  the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that there is no material whatsoever to indicate any instigation or incitement at the instance of the appellant that could lead to Komal committing suicide.

            Further the Court observed that there is no material on record to infer that Komal was left with no other option except to commit suicide.

In the absence of such mens rea on the part of the accused being apparent from the face of record, the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained – Court viewed.

Hence, Supreme Court allowed the appeal for quashing of criminal proceedings by stating, in the absence of ingredients of Section 306 of IPC, continuation of such criminal proceedings would be futile exercise resulting in the absence of process of law. Although, the top Court directed that trial against Revati Bai, second accused, be proceeded.

 

Before:  Justice K.V. Viswanathan Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Date of Judgment: 16 April, 2026

Click to Read/Download Judgment      

You may also Read: Irregularity in framing the charge does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is demonstrated - Supreme Court