Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

No Positive Action Proximate to Suicide; No Offense Under Section 306 IPC”: Supreme Court Acquits NRI in Suicide Abetment Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court today pronounced a landmark judgement in Amudha vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr., acquitting an NRI of charges under Section 306 of the IPC for lack of evidence of incitement or action leading to the suicide of her uncle. The ruling, delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized that “No act is attributed to the appellant proximate to the time of the suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.

The case revolved around the interpretation of Section 306 of the IPC, which deals with the abetment of suicide. The appellant, Amudha, was accused of abetting the suicide of her uncle, who died on March 5, 2020. The main legal question was whether her actions constituted an offence under Section 306 IPC.

The case unfolded with the deceased allegedly committing suicide after a property dispute with his brother, Annamalai, and a quarrel over Amudha’s wedding card. The prosecution accused Amudha and her family members of harassing the deceased. However, the appellant argued that she had been in the USA since September 2019, with no direct contact with the deceased before his suicide.

In their detailed assessment, the Court noted the lack of direct evidence linking Amudha to the deceased’s suicide. The judges referenced key precedents, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of incitement or direct action leading to suicide for a conviction under Section 306 IPC.

Justice Oka highlighted, “Mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence... a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” The Court also took note of the four suicide notes, which failed to establish a clear link between the appellant and the suicide.

Decision The Supreme Court concluded that there were no acts of incitement by Amudha proximate to the date of the suicide, and thus no offence was made out against her. The proceedings against her were quashed, but the Court clarified that the trial could proceed against the other accused.

Date of Decision: March 22, 2024

Amudha vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr.

Similar News