INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India quashed the proceedings pending before the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Kushaiguda, Telangana, against six accused charged under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that a refusal to marry, even if it led the woman to commit suicide, does not amount to abetment of suicide in the absence of intention or knowledge on the part of the accused. The appeals challenged the judgment of the High Court of Telangana.
The Court found no instigation by the Appellants to drive the deceased to suicide and described the allegations as frivolous. Consequently, the Court directed that the Appellants, if in custody, be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.
BACKGROUND
It was alleged that the Appellant No.1 was in love with the deceased and though they were not married, they were living together. In the case projected by the siblings of the deceased, the deceased committed suicide on the 1st Appellant’s refusal to marry her. The FIR was registered on the First Information Statement (FIS) of the deceased’s sister, who is the 1st informant.
It was alleged that the sister of the 1st Appellant urged the 1st Appellant not to continue the relationship and their parents concurred. This was the alleged instigation to drive the deceased to suicide. Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court.
KEY POINTS
- The Supreme Court quashed the pending proceedings and disposed of the appeal as it was unable to find any instigation by the Appellants to drive the deceased to death by suicide.
- The Court observed that people react differently to situations and that, if a breakup ends in suicide, it cannot always be termed abetment of suicide.
- It was noted that the refusal to marry was not made with the intention of driving the woman to suicide, nor can knowledge be attributed to the accused that she would commit suicide on such refusal.
ANALYSIS
The judgment reiterates that for an offence u/s 306 IPC (corresponding to Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), the prosecution must show abetment, which requires instigation or intentional involvement in driving the deceased to suicide.
The Court proceeded on the footing that, even if all the allegations were taken at their highest, the case reduced to a mere refusal to marry. Additionally, it held that such a refusal is not made with the intention of driving the other person to suicide and knowledge of such a consequence cannot be attributed to the accused. The Court’s observations indicate that the outcome of a failed relationship, however tragic, cannot by itself be the basis for criminal liability.
The Court also noted that the relationship was admitted to be consensual and was accepted by the 1st Appellant’s family and the deceased had lived at the 1st Appellant’s house. These facts were held to be undermining the theory that the accused had set out to harass or push the deceased towards suicide. The Court found the allegations to be frivolous and declined to sustain them, quashing the proceedings against all six accused.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court by this decision, reaffirmed that refusal to marry or break up of a relationship does not per se amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC unless there is instigation and intention or knowledge that the act would drive the other person to suicide.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: T. R. AISIRI RAO
