Abetment under Section 306 IPC requires direct or proximate act of instigation or incitement

Case Citation

Supreme Court of India
Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1073 of 2023)
Judgment Date: December 20, 2024
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Facts of the Case

The case concerns the suicide of Jyoti Nagre, who was married to Prakash (Appellant No. 1). After enduring alleged mental and physical harassment by her husband and in-laws, she began residing at her paternal home. During a mediation attempt at a mahalokadalat, Prakash allegedly told her that he would not accept her or her children back into his life, and she was advised to remarry. Jyoti frequently expressed suicidal thoughts afterward and eventually took her own life on March 20, 2015. An FIR was lodged five days later by her mother, Sindhubai Sanap, accusing her husband and in-laws of abetment to suicide under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After preliminary investigations, the appellants filed for discharge, which was denied by both the trial court and the High Court. This appeal was made to the Supreme Court challenging those orders.

Contentions of the Appellants

The appellants argued that:

1. The FIR was delayed by five days without adequate explanation, raising doubts about its credibility.
2. There was no direct or proximate act of instigation by the appellants to drive the deceased to suicide.
3. The mahalokadalat incident occurred over a month prior to Jyoti’s suicide, making any alleged statements during the event too remote to be causally linked.
4. The evidence provided by the prosecution failed to establish any mens rea or intention to abet suicide as required under Section 306 IPC.

Contentions of the Respondent

The State contended that:

1. The appellants’ refusal to reconcile during the mahalokadalat and their alleged statements significantly contributed to Jyoti’s mental distress, leading her to take her life.
2. The allegations in the FIR and the subsequent investigation provided sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial.
3. The trial court and High Court had correctly denied the discharge application, leaving the evidence to be evaluated during the trial.

Issues on this Judgment

1. Whether the actions of the appellants constituted abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
2. Whether the temporal gap between the alleged statements and the act of suicide negated the proximate cause required for abetment.
3. Whether the appellants’ intent or mens rea to incite or instigate suicide was established.

Observations/Findings of the Supreme Court

The Court observed that Section 306 IPC requires both the act of suicide and clear evidence of abetment, as defined under Section 107 IPC. The appellants’ actions must show direct instigation or a deliberate act that left the deceased with no choice but to commit suicide. There was a significant time gap of over a month between the mahalokadalat incident and the suicide, breaking the causal chain required for establishing abetment. The FIR, filed five days after the incident, raised doubts about its reliability. Additionally, the initial Accidental Death Report did not implicate the appellants. The prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence of the appellants’ intent to abet the suicide, making their continued prosecution untenable.

Principles Laid Down by the Court

1. Abetment under Section 306 IPC requires a direct or proximate act of instigation or incitement by the accused.
2. Temporal proximity between the act of instigation and the suicide is essential to establish the causal nexus.
3. Mere harassment or discord, without clear mens rea or a direct link to the suicide, does not satisfy the criteria for abetment.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, and discharged the appellants from the charges under Sections 306 and 34 IPC.

Importance of This Judgment to Society

This judgment underscores the importance of establishing a clear and proximate causal link between an accused’s actions and a suicide to ensure fairness in criminal trials. It prevents misuse of abetment laws in cases where the evidence is speculative or circumstantial, thereby upholding the principles of justice and safeguarding individuals from unwarranted prosecutions.