-
by Admin
17 December 2025 4:09 PM
“Without Mens Rea or Provocation, a Criminal Charge for Suicide Cannot Stand—Suspicion Alone Is Not Evidence” - In a powerful judgment Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court decisively ruled that a suspected extramarital or illicit relationship, even if accepted as true, cannot by itself constitute an offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, unless there is clear evidence of instigation, provocation, or mens rea. Division Bench comprising Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande invoked a series of Supreme Court precedents to hold that "no person can be put through a criminal trial on mere suspicion or on moral assumptions detached from the legal requirements of abetment.”
The Court observed, “Even if the allegation of illicit relationship is accepted as true, there is no proximity or nexus between the alleged act and the commission of suicide. In absence of any specific instigation or direct act, the offence under Section 306 IPC cannot be attracted.”
The ruling came in a case where a police constable allegedly died by suicide and the FIR named a co-worker, Pravin Borkar, as the person whose alleged relationship with her had mentally tortured her into taking her life. The Court was unequivocal in holding that such allegations, bereft of any direct and immediate link between the accused’s conduct and the act of suicide, do not even remotely satisfy the test of criminal abetment.
“To Prosecute a Person for Abetment of Suicide, There Must Be Active Incitement—Not Merely a Suspected Affair”
The facts of the case show that the deceased woman, who worked in the police department, died by hanging on 9 December 2021. Her father-in-law lodged a complaint alleging that she had been in a relationship with Pravin Borkar, a driver in the same police station, and that this relationship led her to suicide. Based solely on this, an FIR was registered under Sections 306, 506, and 507 IPC, and a charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Court.
The Court rejected the very basis of the prosecution, stating that “the essential element of abetment is missing”, and that there was no active or direct act of the applicant which could be said to have led the deceased to take the extreme step. The Bench noted, “Except the statements of the deceased’s relatives, there is no material collected during the investigation. Even the communication between the mother of the deceased and the applicant fails to disclose any illicit relationship or any act of provocation.”
“A Broken Relationship or Workplace Association Cannot Become a Criminal Charge Without Evidence of Instigation”
The High Court applied the consistent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court to reinforce the boundaries of criminal liability under Section 306 IPC. Citing the celebrated decision in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 383, the Court reiterated that “mere utterance of words or emotional distress in a relationship, without a specific intent to provoke or instigate suicide, cannot be termed as abetment.”
The Court also placed reliance on M. Mohan v. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238, where it was categorically held: “There must be something more than mere harassment to make it an offence of abetment. There must be proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide.”
Further strengthening its reasoning, the Bench invoked Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 512, stating, “Mere harassment without an element of active instigation or encouragement cannot amount to abetment of suicide.”
Summarising its legal stance, the Bombay High Court stated, “Until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 IPC.”
“No Trial Should Proceed Where There Is No Prima Facie Evidence of Abetment—The Court Must Intervene to Prevent Misuse of Process”
The High Court went further to underline the duty of constitutional courts to prevent abuse of criminal process, especially in emotionally charged cases. It held that “Subjecting the applicant to trial on such evidence would not only be a mere formality but also abuse of process of law.” The material collected during investigation did not support the hypothesis of any criminal instigation. The alleged relationship, even if assumed, lacked the legal proximity and intention required to fasten criminal liability.
The Bench expressed concern over the misuse of criminal provisions in personal and sensitive matters and emphasized that criminal law should not become a tool of emotional retaliation or social condemnation unless the legal ingredients of the offence are clearly made out.
Final Verdict: FIR and Entire Proceedings Quashed as Abuse of Law
Finding no sustainable evidence or material to justify prosecution, the Bombay High Court quashed:
The FIR No. 315/2021 registered at Salekasa Police Station
The Sessions Case No. 43/2022 pending before the Sessions Court
And disposed of Criminal Application No. 28/2023
The Court’s message was clear: “Suspicion, moral outrage, or family disapproval cannot be the foundation of a criminal charge unless supported by acts which the law unequivocally treats as instigation or abetment.”
Criminal Liability for Suicide Requires Legal Proof, Not Emotional Implication
This decision of the Bombay High Court stands as a clear reaffirmation of the principle that criminal law must not operate on social assumptions or moralism. In cases of suicide, the causal link between the accused’s conduct and the death must be strong, immediate, and provable. The Court has sent a strong message that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to survive on broken relationships, workplace proximity, or unverified suspicions, but must be based on intent, action, and legal evidence.
As the Court fittingly concluded, “A criminal trial cannot be a tool to moralise personal choices in the absence of criminal intent. Law demands proof—not presumption.”
Date of Decision: 17 September 2025
