Mutation Cannot Be Granted Solely on the Basis of a Will Without Civil Court Adjudication: Karnataka High Court Refusal to Cohabit for an Extended Period is Cruelty: Kerala High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Trademark Law Does Not Permit Dissecting a Composite Mark Into Individual Parts: Bombay High Court Overturns Refusal of ‘KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT’ Device Mark Summary Security Force Court Should Be Convened Only in Cases of Grave and Imminent Necessity: Delhi High Court Quashes BSF Court-Martial, Orders Reinstatement of Ex-Constable A Registered Sale Deed Creates a Presumption of Valid Execution: Gujarat High Court Madras High Court Quashes Income Tax Assessments for Lack of Satisfaction Note Under Section 153C Repeated Bail Applications Without New Grounds Are an Abuse of Process: P&H High Court Denies Bail to Accused in ₹1.34 Crore Sextortion and Cyber Fraud Case Mere Recovery of Money Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance Insufficient for Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Acquits Appellant in Corruption Case A Registered FIR Delay is Not Always Fatal—Murder Conviction Sustained Based on Reliable Witness Testimonies: Punjab & Haryana High Court Supreme Court Strikes Down Income Tax Authorities' Rigid Interpretation of Compounding Guidelines Justice Cannot Be Selective: Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe into “One-Sided” Investigation of Suicide Case Following Inter-Religious Relationship Tragedy Mere Harsh Words Cannot Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Section 306 IPC General Allegations Against Extended Relatives in Dowry Harassment Cases Cannot Lead to Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings Either Life Imprisonment or a Maximum of 10 Years – No Scope for 12 Years: Supreme Court Corrects High Court's Sentencing Error Legislature's Intent Clear: Dealers in Cooked Food Can Opt for 0.5% Tax on Resale Goods: Kerala High Court Review Powers Under Repealed Act Invalid, Says Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nestle Tax Case Last Seen Theory Without Corroboration Cannot Establish Guilt: Supreme Court Acquits Raja Khan Loss of a Right Hand for a Labourer is a Near-Total Disability: Supreme Court Increases Motor Accident Compensation to ₹20.55 Lakh Supreme Court Upholds Repeal of Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976; Allows Delegation of Permit Granting Powers to STA Secretary Insurance Cannot Be Denied on Arbitrary Technicalities: Supreme Court Slams National Insurance for Unfair Claim Rejection Possession Under a Void Transaction Ripens Into Adverse Ownership Over Time: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Mere Harsh Words Cannot Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Section 306 IPC

08 February 2025 1:46 PM

By: sayum


In a latest ruling Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings against Ayyub and others, accused of abetting the suicide of a young woman, Tanu, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court found that the statements attributed to the accused did not amount to active instigation or coercion to commit suicide, a necessary legal requirement for an offence under Section 306 IPC.

A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held that the prosecution’s case lacked essential ingredients of abetment and directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to reinvestigate the case, citing concerns over a one-sided and biased probe.

The Bench observed: "A mere verbal altercation, even if harsh or humiliating, does not amount to abetment of suicide unless there exists a proximate link between the accused’s words and the deceased’s decision to end their life. In the absence of active instigation or coercion, the charge under Section 306 IPC is legally unsustainable."

The case arose from a tragic sequence of events following an inter-religious relationship between Ziaul Rahman and Tanu, both of whom died under suspicious circumstances.

On November 2, 2022, Ziaul Rahman was allegedly beaten to death by Tanu’s family members, who disapproved of their relationship. That same evening, his father, Ayyub (the appellant), lodged an FIR against Tanu’s family members for murder under Section 304 IPC at PS Rampur Maniharan, Saharanpur.

The next morning (November 3, 2022), Tanu allegedly died by suicide. Later that evening, her cousin, Vijay (Respondent No. 2), lodged a counter-FIR, accusing Ayyub and his relatives of abetting Tanu’s suicide. According to Vijay’s complaint, the appellants visited Tanu’s house on the morning of November 2, 2022, and humiliated her by saying, "Because of you, our boy has died—why don’t you die too?" He claimed that this statement drove Tanu to take her life a few hours later.

A post-mortem conducted on November 2, 2022, at 5:00 PM recorded ligature marks on Tanu’s neck, confirming hanging as the cause of death. However, the police did not register an FIR for abetment of suicide until November 3, 2022 (17:07 hrs), after the body had been cremated.

Based on witness statements that closely parroted the FIR, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 306 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, took cognizance and issued summons, prompting the appellants to approach the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The High Court dismissed their plea, holding that Tanu was hypersensitive, deeply humiliated, and the appellants’ words were sufficient provocation to establish abetment of suicide. This ruling was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Reversing the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court found no direct link between the appellants’ alleged statements and Tanu’s suicide. The Bench categorically held: "For an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be active encouragement or instigation to commit suicide. Mere verbal abuse, humiliation, or a heated exchange, without an element of coercion, is not sufficient to constitute abetment."

The Court relied on its earlier precedents, including Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), where the accused told the deceased to "go and die," but the Supreme Court ruled that such words, though harsh, did not amount to abetment. The Bench reiterated:

"Words spoken in anger or frustration, even if unkind, do not automatically amount to abetment unless they create an immediate and overwhelming pressure on the victim to end their life."

Referring to Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Court reiterated that "there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide."

Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court held: "Tanu’s suicide was preceded by multiple distressing events, including the alleged murder of her friend Ziaul Rahman. The case record reveals that her family strongly opposed the relationship. These surrounding factors must also be considered. The alleged statement by the appellants, even if assumed to be true, does not meet the legal threshold for abetment of suicide."

Concerns Over a "One-Sided" Investigation – Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe

The Supreme Court expressed serious doubts over the police investigation, observing that the FIR was lodged 24 hours after the post-mortem and was based entirely on witness statements that mechanically repeated the allegations without independent corroboration.

The Bench noted: "The investigation appears to have proceeded in an unidimensional manner, blindly accepting the complainant’s version as gospel truth while ignoring other potential causes of the deceased’s distress. Was there any other instigation or pressure from any other quarter? Was the deceased already distraught over the turn of events regarding her relationship? These questions remain unanswered."

Highlighting the lack of independent inquiry, the Supreme Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a Deputy Inspector General (DIG)-level officer to conduct a fresh probe into Tanu’s death.

The Court further authorized the SIT to treat the FIR as a case of unnatural death and re-register it if necessary.

"An independent, thorough, and comprehensive investigation is required to uncover the truth. The SIT must re-examine all angles, without preconceptions, and submit a sealed report within two months."

The Supreme Court concluded that continuing proceedings against the appellants would amount to gross abuse of process and accordingly quashed the charges under Section 306 IPC.

The Bench directed: "The charge-sheet and order of cognizance against the appellants in Case No. 2843 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, are quashed. The SIT is directed to submit its reinvestigation report in a sealed cover by April 15, 2025, on which date the matter will be listed for further directions."

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the quashing of proceedings against the appellants and would not prejudice the SIT’s reinvestigation.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that criminal liability for abetment of suicide cannot be imposed based on vague allegations or emotional reactions. The judgment sets a crucial precedent, ensuring that Section 306 IPC is not misused to implicate individuals without clear evidence of intent and instigation.

By ordering an SIT investigation into the broader circumstances surrounding Tanu’s death, the Supreme Court has also affirmed its commitment to ensuring impartial and unbiased criminal investigations.

With this decision, the Supreme Court has not only safeguarded the legal principles governing abetment of suicide but also reaffirmed the importance of fair and independent investigations in cases involving inter-religious and emotionally charged disputes.

Date of Decision: February 7, 2025

Similar News