Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case

Court Should Not Be Satisfied Where Victim Reacted Hypersensitively to Ordinary Discord: Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the acquittal of Subhash, who was earlier accused under Section 306 IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of Krishan Kundu. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held that neither the alleged harassment nor the suicide note proved the legal ingredients necessary to sustain a charge of abetment.
The Court cautioned against mechanically interpreting financial disputes or personal altercations as abetment to suicide, observing: “The court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances... If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences... the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused... should be found guilty.”
The case originated from an incident on 26.10.2008, when Krishan Kundu, the deceased, consumed poison and died allegedly due to harassment caused by Subhash, who had defaulted on a ₹25,000 loan and allegedly threatened Krishan. The FIR was lodged under Section 306 IPC. A suicide note naming Subhash was recovered, leading to his arrest.
At trial, the prosecution relied heavily on the suicide note and the testimonies of Vineet Kundu (brother of the deceased) and other police witnesses. However, the Trial Court acquitted Subhash, finding no sufficient evidence of abetment. The complainant filed a criminal revision against this acquittal.
“Mere Non-Payment of Debt and Altercation Are Not Abetment”: Court Distinguishes Between Harassment and Incitement
The High Court highlighted that abetment under Sections 306 and 107 IPC requires proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement, instigation, or conspiracy, not just personal or financial disputes.
The Court observed: “Thus, if for the sake of argument, it is admitted to be correct that the accused had refused to repay the loan... and then some altercation had taken place, no case for abetment to commit suicide is made out.”
It further emphasized that: “The deceased had remedy to recover the said amount by the procedure prescribed by law, and it does not mean that if the payment had not been made and some altercation took place... the same would amount to abetment.”
Suicide Note Not Sufficient Without Clear Evidence of Instigation
The Court noted that the suicide note did name Subhash and referred to harassment, but it also referred vaguely to harassment by police officials without naming anyone specifically. The Court found that no effort was made by the prosecution to investigate this alleged harassment by the police.

Justice Bedi remarked: “The prosecution has not collected any evidence with regard to the nature, conduct and character of the deceased to prove the temperament which could assist the prosecution to prove that the deceased was a prudent man and he was humiliated and harassed to such an extent that he was left with no alternative but to commit suicide.”
The Court observed that merely being troubled by loan recovery issues or altercations, without clear and proximate incitement, does not constitute abetment.
“Victim’s Hypersensitivity Cannot Create Criminal Liability” — High Court Aligns with Settled Jurisprudence
Referring to judicial precedents, the Court underlined that every case of suicide cannot be attributed to abetment unless there is cogent proof of deliberate provocation or incitement. Justice Bedi stated: “If the deceased himself was of such temperament and reacted abnormally, the accused cannot be held guilty for the abetment to suicide.”
The Court also noted the absence of any documentary proof showing that Krishan Kundu even ran a registered finance business or that the accused ever took a formal loan from him.
Dismissing the petition, the Court concluded: “In fact, there is no evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement of the commission of suicide. Thus, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been established.”
The High Court upheld the acquittal, affirming that the Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and no interference was warranted.

Date of Decision: 27 March 2025