On January 21, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment in Laxmi Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., where it quashed charges against the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide. The decision reiterates the importance of evidence and intent in cases involving allegations of abetment
The case revolved around the tragic suicide of Souma Pal, allegedly linked to her romantic relationship with Babu Das, son of the appellant, Laxmi Das. The deceased’s family claimed that the appellant disapproved of the relationship and made insulting remarks, leading to Souma’s suicide.
The facts germane to the present dispute are summarised as below:
2.1 Appellant is the mother of Babu Das/Accused No. 1, who was allegedly in a love affair with the
deceased, Souma Pal. Dilip Das and Subrata Das are the father and elder brother of Babu Das respectively
(hereinafter collectively “the accused”). All four were initially accused of abetment of suicide and
charged under Sections 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) 2.2 On 03.07.2008 an unnatural death came to be registered as the deceased was found dead in the place between the Garia Railway Station and Narendrapur Railway Station. Consequently on 06.07.2008, an FIR came to be filed by the deceased’s uncle/Complainant alleging abetment of suicide against the accused. The Complainant alleged that the deceased’s family was unhappy with the love affair between Babu Das and the deceased, and wanted her to focus on her studies. On account of this, they requested Babu Das and the other accused persons to help them put an end to the same, which they refused to do. It is further alleged that the accused persons refused to cooperate in finding the deceased when she went missing.
2.3 Accordingly, a chargesheet came to be filed against the accused under Sections 306 and 109 read with
34 of the IPC. The investigation revealed that about three to four years before the incident, the love affair
between the deceased and Babu Das began. The deceased’s parents were against the relationship and
tried several times to break it off, while the accused persons encouraged the same. The post mortem report disclosed that the death was caused by the effect of injuries on impact due to jumping in front of a train.
The key legal question was whether Laxmi Das’s alleged actions and remarks constituted abetment under Section 306 IPC. The provision mandates the presence of clear instigation, intentional aid, or conspiracy, as defined under Section 107 IPC.
“306. Abetment of suicide. – If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission
of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” We must read Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC which defines ‘Abetment’; and it reads as below:
“107. Abetment of a thing. – A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission ofthat act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide
Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and Another1,
wherein this Court has interpreted Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and observed: “8. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to ‘doing of a thing’. When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.
…
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The
prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as
recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband.
Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Reliance is to be placed upon Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh4, wherein the Supreme Court held:
“43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.”
Conclusion:
It is discerned from the record that the Appellant along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure on the
deceased to end the relationship between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased’s family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC.
15. Accordingly, the impugned order is partly set aside to the extent that the charges against the Appellant herein were upheld by the High Court. Accordingly, the proceedings in SC Case No. 5(8)10 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Sealdah stands quashed qua the Appellant/Smt. Laxmi Das only. We clarify that the present case is only confined
Supreme Court’s Rationale: The Court emphasized:
Mens Rea and Proximity: Abetment requires clear intent to provoke the act of suicide, along with proximity to the incident.
Casual Remarks Insufficient: Statements made in anger or casual remarks, such as the alleged “you should die” comment, do not meet the threshold for instigation.
Insufficient Evidence: The evidence failed to demonstrate direct or indirect encouragement or pressure by Laxmi Das that left the deceased with no choice but to end her life.
This judgment underscores the need for robust evidence and intent in abetment cases. It protects individuals from being wrongfully implicated based on vague allegations or family disputes.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 706 OF 2017
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Citation: 2025 INSC 86; Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017.
ความคิดเห็น