Illicit Relationship Alone Not Sufficient To Establish Abetment Of Suicide In Absence Of Mens Rea And Instigation U/S 306 IPC: Supreme Court
The Court held that allegations of an illicit relationship, in the absence of a positive act of instigation or proximate conduct compelling suicide, do not satisfy the ingredients of abetment U/S306 IPC.
The Supreme Court held that mere allegations of an illicit relationship, without any material indicating a positive act of instigation or intentional aid, are insufficient to sustain a charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court clarified that the offence requires clear mens rea on the part of the accused and a proximate act of instigation or incitement leading to the suicide, and in the absence of such elements, the charge cannot be sustained.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had upheld the framing of charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant in connection with the alleged suicide of one Komal Sahu.
A Bench of Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed: “Even if we proceed on the premise that there were illicit relations between the appellant and the wife of the deceased, the clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide is absent… There is no allegation that the appellant had instigated Komal to commit suicide… in the absence of such mens rea… the charge under Section 306… cannot be sustained.”
The appellant was represented by Anand P. Pande, Advocate, while the State was represented by Ankita Sharma, Advocate.
Background
The case arose from the death of Komal Sahu, whose body was found hanging from a tree in May 2024. The postmortem report indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging, and the investigation concluded that it was a case of suicide.
The prosecution's case rested on statements of family members and neighbours alleging that the appellant had an illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased and that the deceased was subjected to humiliation on that account. It was alleged that such circumstances left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.
On this basis, charges were framed under Section 306 IPC, and in the alternative under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellant’s challenge to the framing of the charge was rejected by the High Court, leading to the present appeal.
Court’s Observation
The Court reiterated the settled legal position governing Section 306 IPC, noting that abetment requires proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid as defined under Section 107 IPC. It held that the presence of mens rea is an indispensable requirement, and there must be a direct or proximate nexus between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide.
The Court observed: “To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement… which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide… and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.”
Examining the material on record, the Court found that the evidence primarily consisted of general allegations of an illicit relationship and statements indicating that the deceased was addicted to liquor and used to have disputes with his wife.
It noted that there was no suicide note, no direct allegation of instigation, and no material indicating any act on the part of the appellant which could be said to have driven the deceased to commit suicide. The Court also found the absence of proximity between the alleged conduct and the act of suicide.
In this context, the Court held: “there is no material whatsoever to indicate any instigation or incitement at the instance of the appellant… No material whatsoever as regards the proximity… is available on record.”
Reiterating the requirement of mens rea, the Court held that the clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide is absent and that there is no allegation that the appellant had instigated or aided any act to bring about the suicide.
The Court further emphasised that even if the entire prosecution material is accepted at face value, it does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC.
Conclusion
The Court held that the material on record failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Accordingly, the order of the High Court was set aside, the charge framed against the appellant was quashed, and the appellant was discharged from the criminal proceedings. The Court clarified that the trial against the co-accused would proceed independently.
Cause Title: Balaji Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 375)