Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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.

Latest Legal News