S. 306 IPC Casually Resorted To By Police; Must Not Be Deployed Against Persons To Assuage Immediate Feelings Of Deceased’s Family: SC
The Apex Court allowed a Criminal Appeal preferred against the High Court's Judgment by which the accused’s prayer of discharge was declined.
The Supreme Court observed that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to Abetment of Suicide is being casually and too readily resorted to by the police.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench by which the accused’s prayer seeking discharge was declined.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice K.V. Viswanathan emphasised, “Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life.”
The Bench remarked that, hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide and it is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by the Court under Section 306 IPC so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution.
Advocate Pardeep Kumar Yadav appeared for the Appellant/Accused while Advocate Abhimanyu Singh appeared for the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
In 2022, an FIR was registered by the Informant stating that his brother was residing near his house along with this son who had left home in the morning on his motorcycle to go to the farm. When he did not return home in the afternoon, his father called him but he got no response and then his nephews started searching for him. They found a motorcycle parked on the side of the road and when they searched nearby, they found that the deceased was hanging on a rope noose from a tree. The informant stated that he informed the deceased’s father about the said incident. During inquest under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a written suicide note and a mobile were found.
The suicide note mentioned about the deceased being harassed by the Appellant-accused. Resultantly, a case under Section 306 of IPC was registered against him. As per the statements of witnesses, the deceased was staying disturbed for the past few months and when asked, he had mentioned to them that the accused was harassing him with respect to repayment of a loan. The accused prayed for discharge from the proceedings but the First Additional Sessions Judge denied the same. Thereafter, he approached the High Court but his Revision was dismissed and being aggrieved, he was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above regard, said, “In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”
The Court further enunciated that, to satisfy the requirement of instigation, the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It also reiterated that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
“… we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution’s case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove”, it added.
Moreover, the Court noted that the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.
The Court also emphasised that the Trial Courts should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in the case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.
“Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days. … This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach”, it observed.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the case against the accused is groundless for framing of a charge under Section 306 IPC.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Order, and discharged the accused.
Cause Title- Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 76)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Sanjeev Malhotra, Advocates Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Prapti Shrivastava, Gopal Singh, Vishal Thakre, Aditya Yadav, Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Tota Ram, and Anjale Kumari.
Respondent: AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan and Advocate Abhimanyu Singh.
