CASE NAME: Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala
CASE NUMBER: CRL.REV.PET NO. 1224 OF 2025
COURT: The High Court of Kerala
DATE: 28 January 2026
QUORUM: Honourable Mr Justice C. Pratheep Kumar
FACTS
The petitioner is the first accused in S.C. No. 427/2024, which is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kasaragod, in respect of Crime No. 577/2023, registered at Melparamba Police Station. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was in an extramarital relationship with the second accused, who later died, and at the time of the relationship, the deceased was already married. When the petitioner expressed his intention to marry another woman, the deceased contacted him over the phone. During a heated argument, the petitioner allegedly abused her, saying, “Go away and die.” It is alleged that the deceased was so disturbed by the petitioner’s statement that she, along with her 5½-year-old daughter, jumped into a well and died on 15.09.2023.
The Sessions Judge, as per Annexure-A4, rejected the petitioner’s discharge application and decided to frame charges under Sections 306 and 204 of the IPC. Dissatisfied with the Sessions Judge’s order, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS.
ISSUES
- Whether the alleged words and conduct of the petitioner amount to abetment of suicide under the Indian Penal Code, Section 306.
- Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in framing charges under the Indian Penal Code, Sections 306 and 204.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to discharge.
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
- Section 306 IPC – Abetment of suicide
- Section 107 IPC – Abetment defined
- Sections 438 & 442 BNSS – Revisional and discharge powers
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the whole case of the prosecution is accepted, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not made out. It was also argued that the words “go away and die” were uttered in the heat of a verbal duel, with no intention to commit suicide.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. (2002 KHC 1270) was cited, wherein the Court held that the words “to go and die” uttered during a quarrel do not amount to instigation, as these words are devoid of mens rea and were uttered in the heat of the moment. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. (1995 KHC 3306) was also relied upon, wherein the Court held that casual remarks uttered in the heat of the moment do not amount to abetment of suicide.
Based on this, it was argued that since the petitioner is not liable under Section 306 IPC, he is also not liable under Section 204 IPC, and hence, the petitioner is entitled to be discharged.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and supported the Annexure-A4 order of the Sessions Judge. The prosecution argued that the petitioner’s words caused mental agony to the deceased, who ultimately committed suicide, and hence, the petitioner is liable to be framed for offences under Sections 306 and 204 IPC.
ANALYSIS
The Court also analysed the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in the light of a scheme of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein abetment is related to instigation, intentional aiding, or conspiracy and is coupled with mens rea. It relied upon the judgment in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., asserting that where words are uttered in the heat of a quarrel or out of an emotional outburst, unless there is a real intent, there cannot be any instigation. It also relied upon the judgment in the case of Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., wherein a casual remark provoked in a fit of anger does not amount to any abetment.
Further, a judgment in Cyriac v. S.I. of Police (2005 KHC 1021) was cited to illustrate that what mattered was what was intended by the accused, and not emotions or states of mind experienced by the deceased, asserting, “indirect influence or impact upon the mind of the suicide will not suffice unless death was intended to follow.”
On these precedents, the Court held that the statement of the petitioner was involved in a heated quarrel, and there was no attempt to provoke a suicide. There were no essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC, and accordingly, it found that there were no essential ingredients of Section 204 IPC.
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed, where the Annexure-A4 order was set aside. The petitioner was discharged regarding offences under Section 306 and 204 IPC, Section 438 and 442 of the BNSS.
CONCLUSION
Based on precedents, the Court held that mens rea and the intention to instigate are necessary for the abetment of suicide. Words spoken in the heat of an argument, in the absence of the intention to instigate, do not amount to Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the petitioner was correctly discharged.
“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: USIKA K
