The Bombay High Court held that mere refusal to marry a person after break up of relationship will not amount to Abetment of Suicide.

The Nagpur Bench held thus in a Criminal Revision Application filed by the accused man in connection with a crime registered against him under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), whose Discharge Application was rejected.

A Single Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke observed, “… the evidence shows that after breaking of the relationship, the deceased victim was constantly in contact with the applicant and was communicating with him. Therefore, in such a situation, merely because the applicant refused to marry her, that by itself would not amount to instigate or provoke the deceased victim to commit suicide. At the most, what is attributable to the applicant is that he has broken the relationship.”

The Bench said that an ‘instigation’ to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a person with abetment of suicide.

Advocate Akshay Sudame appeared on behalf of the Applicant/Accused while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) M.J. Khan appeared on behalf of the Non-Applicant/State.

Brief Facts

The Applicant-accused and the deceased victim were having love affair from last nine years. In 2020, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself and she left behind an exhaustive suicide note stating in it the details of affair and her relationship with the accused. It was alleged that on the promise of marriage, the accused and the deceased had physical relationship and subsequently, the accused broke the said relationship and denied to marry with her.

It was further alleged that the accused developed relationship with other girl and as the deceased was disturbed and, in a depression, she committed suicide. Based on the suicide note, the informant i.e., the victim’s father lodged a report against the accused that he abetted her to commit suicide. Resultantly, the crime was registered and thereafter, the WhatsApp Chats between the two were collected. The accused filed an Application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking his discharge but the same was rejected. Challenging this Order, he was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “… until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. While dealing with the situation on the basis of the facts before the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held that the accused-appellant had simply refused to marry the deceased and thus, even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide.”

The Court further noted that an exhaustive suicide note written by the deceased victim and the transcript of the WhatsApp Chats between the deceased victim and the accused reveal that love relationship was developed between them and out of the same, there was consensual relationship between them.

“The suicide note or WhatsApp Chats nowhere disclose that the said physical relationship was developed on the promise of marriage. The said relationship was broken between them. Thus, it is the case of only broken relationship. Moreover, the suicide by the deceased victim is not immediate result of the said broken relationship. The applicant denied to have love relationship with her in July 2020 itself and, thereafter, the deceased victim committed suicide on 3.12.2020”, it added.

The Court observed that there was no proximity or nexus between two acts i.e. breaking of the relationship and the suicide and it is only a case of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to commit suicide.

“As far as investigation papers are concerned, it nowhere reveals that the applicant, at any time, provoked the deceased victim in any manner to kill herself”, it also said.

The Court concluded that, even if it is assumed that the material collected by the prosecution is true, it would not be sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the conducting of the trial against the accused would be an empty formality.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Application, quashed the impugned Order, and discharged the accused.

Cause Title- Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:424)

Click here to read/download the Judgment