Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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

08 February 2025 7:57 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

Latest Legal News