Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Collector’s Appointment of Ex-Serviceman as Lambardar: Preference for Service to the State Valid Tax to Be Computed at 100% Under DTVSV Act, Rejects Inclusion of Belated Grounds in Disputed Tax: Bombay High Court Petitioner’s Father Did Not Fall Within Definition of Enemy – Kerala High Court Quashes Land Classification Under Enemy Property Act Calcutta High Court Upholds Cancellation of LPG Distributor LOI for Violating Guidelines Recording 'Reasons to Believe' is a Mandatory Safeguard, Not a Mere Formality Under PMLA: P&H High Court Illegality Is Incurable, Unauthorized Constructions Cannot Be Regularized: Bombay High Court Kerala High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Granting Retrospective UGC Benefits to Librarians Without Required Qualifications Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | No Evidence Can Be Admitted Beyond Pleadings, And Additional Evidence Cannot Be Allowed Merely To Fill Lacunae: Jharkhand High Court Quashing | Mere Heated Exchanges Over Loan Repayment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Prisoner Transfers Must Prioritize Security and Prevent Gang Violence: Supreme Court Restores Intra-State Transfer Order Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC Is Conditional Upon Framing Substantial Questions of Law: Supreme Court Panchayat Election | Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Bar on Judicial Review During Election Process Encroachment Allegation Requires Concrete Evidence, Not Mere Surmises: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea for Disqualification of Sarpanch Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court

"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

Similar News