-
by Admin
20 December 2025 9:36 AM
“Harsh Words and Dignity Attacks Alone Don’t Prove Abetment Unless Timely and Instigative”— In a significant judgment Supreme Court of India quashed proceedings under Section 306 IPC against the wife and in-laws of a man who died by suicide nearly a month after an alleged altercation. The Court held that “abetment” demands not only proximity of time but also a clear instigative intent, which was missing from the material produced, including the suicide note.
Justice Augustine George Masih, writing for the Bench, observed: “Mens rea cannot be presumed, but must be ostensibly present and visible… Without a positive act which instigates or aids the commission of suicide, the offence cannot be made out.”
The deceased, Dinesh, an engineer, was married to Accused No. 7, Pushpakalashree, an MBA graduate. According to the prosecution, on November 10, 2013, the wife and six of her relatives visited Dinesh’s house, allegedly verbally abused him, questioned his manhood, and threatened a false dowry case. The wife also allegedly took nude photographs of Dinesh and threatened to circulate them.
A month later, on December 9, 2013, Dinesh died by suicide. A suicide note, reportedly torn pages from his personal diary, was handed over by his mother. Based on this note, the police altered the case from Section 174 CrPC to Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), and a chargesheet was filed. The accused moved to quash it under Section 482 CrPC, but the Madras High Court dismissed the plea, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The key legal question was whether the alleged conduct of the accused a month before the suicide could constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC.
The Court reiterated: “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding them to commit suicide. Such instigation must be proximate in time and causally connected to the act of suicide.”
Quoting from its earlier ruling in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, the Court noted: “In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment would not suffice unless there is an action on part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence.”
The bench found that there was no contact between the accused and the deceased for nearly a month prior to the suicide, and no direct inducement or threat close to the time of death.
Even if the alleged abuses—particularly the questioning of manhood—were hurtful,
“They cannot be construed as a sufficient provocation to drive an ordinary, reasonable person to suicide—especially after a month-long gap,” the Court ruled.
The Court emphasized that instigation must mean: “To goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act… Harsh language, however insulting, does not by itself amount to abetment.”
While the prosecution relied heavily on the suicide note, the Court pointed out that:
The note was undated and was not conclusively verified as written by the deceased.
Even assuming it was genuine, the contents named only four people and mostly referred to a single incident on November 10.
Crucially, the Court said:
“From November 11 to December 9, there was no further communication or confrontation. This breaks the causal chain.”
Holding that the essential ingredients of abetment under Sections 306 and 107 IPC were absent, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings and allowed the appeals. The judgment is a reaffirmation of the principle that emotional reactions and tragic outcomes, though grievous, cannot replace legal thresholds of instigation, proximity, and mens rea in abetment cases.
The Court concluded: “The continuation of the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of law.”
Date of Decision: April 30, 2025
