MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

"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