Supreme Court: Remarks Questioning Manhood, Though Hurtful, Cannot Itself Be Construed As Sufficient Provocation For Abetment Of Suicide
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, which dismissed the Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the chargesheet under Section 306 of the IPC.
Justice Abhay S Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that alleged remarks questioning a person’s manhood, though hurtful, cannot by itself be construed as sufficient provocation for abetment of suicide.
The Court set aside the Judgment of the Madras High Court, which dismissed the Petitions by the Appellants under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the chargesheet against them under Section 306 of the IPC. The Court held that merely because the alleged act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “While the remark allegedly made—questioning the manhood of the deceased could be hurtful and may affect a person’s dignity but it cannot, in itself and especially after a gap of nearly a month between the incident and the suicide, it cannot be construed as a sufficient provocation that would impel an ordinary, reasonable person to take such an irrevocable step.”
Senior Advocates Rebecca M John and Rachana Srivastava represented the Appellants, while Senior AAG V Krishnaurthy appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
According to the prosecution, the deceased committed suicide due to continuous harassment by the Appellants. It was alleged that the Appellants not only abused the deceased and his family with filthy language, but also insulted the deceased by calling him impotent and infertile.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court explained, “Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential, the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing.”
The Bench remarked, “In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.”
The Court noted, “Merely on the basis of the allegations of harassment and that too a month ago with in between there being no contact of any sort on the part of the Appellants, till the time of occurrence which can be said to have led or compelled the deceased to have committed suicide, the offence has not been made out. Mens rea cannot be presumed, but must be ostensibly present and visible, which is missing in the present case.”
The Bench held, “In the light of the above findings, when offence under Section 306 itself is not being made out continuance of the proceedings against the Appellants cannot be permitted.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “The present appeals are allowed. The impugned Judgment dated 13.04.2018 passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Shenbagavalli & Ors. v. The Inspector Of Police, Kancheepuram District & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 607)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Rebecca M John and Rachana Srivastava; AOR John Mathew and Mona K. Rajvanshi; Advocate Anushka Baruah
Respondents: Senior AAG V. Krishnaurthy; AOR D. Kumanan
