Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

"Extramarital Affair Alone Doesn't Constitute Abetment to Suicide": Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR

04 September 2024 12:39 PM

By: sayum


The Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed an FIR against Dr. Rajeshkumar Somabhai Katara and another accused in a case involving the alleged abetment to suicide of Dr. Katara's husband. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), notably the lack of mens rea or intention to instigate the suicide.

The case arose from the suicide of Dr. Katara's husband, who was allegedly distressed by his wife's extramarital relationship with the co-accused. The complainant, the deceased's mother, lodged an FIR accusing Dr. Katara and her alleged paramour of abetting the suicide. The prosecution argued that the husband's discovery of the affair led him into depression, ultimately driving him to take his own life.

Justice Divyesh A. Joshi noted the significant delay in registering the FIR—19 days after the alleged suicide—which was unexplained by the complainant. The court also considered that the FIR and the evidence presented, including call recordings and WhatsApp chats, failed to demonstrate any direct act of instigation or intentional assistance from the accused that would have led to the suicide.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Geo Verghese v. State of Rajasthan, the court reiterated that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of mens rea and a direct, intentional act by the accused to instigate the suicide. The judgment emphasized, "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained."

Further referencing K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka, the court observed that while extramarital affairs might constitute grounds for divorce, they do not, by themselves, amount to abetment of suicide unless accompanied by a clear intention to provoke such an act. The court concluded that no such intention was evident in this case.

Justice Joshi remarked, "The very element of abetment is missing from the allegations leveled in the FIR. In absence of the element of abetment from the allegations, the offense under Section 306 IPC would not be attracted."

The Gujarat High Court's decision to quash the FIR underscores the judiciary's careful approach in cases of alleged abetment to suicide, particularly where the prosecution's evidence fails to establish the requisite intent to instigate. This ruling reaffirms the legal principle that mens rea and direct instigation are crucial components for sustaining charges under Section 306 IPC. The judgment also sets a significant precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the need for robust and timely evidence to support such serious allegations.

Date of Decision: August 28, 2024

Dr. Rajeshkumar Somabhai Katara v. State of Gujarat

Latest Legal News