SUPREME COURT OVER RULES CONVICTION IN ABETMENT OF SUICIDE CASE

Disclaimer
This article discusses topics related to suicide, which may be distressing to some readers. If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of self-harm or suicide, please seek help immediately. You can contact KIRAN (24/7 Mental Health Helpline) at 1800-599-0019 or reach out to a trusted mental health professional. You are not alone.

The Judgment in the Case of Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. Versus State Of Gujarat., arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 1388 Of 2014 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on March 05, 2025. This case primarily deals with the Appeal against the conviction of Appellants for abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC, based on a disputed suicide note and allegations of blackmail. The Supreme Court acquitted the Appellants, citing inconsistencies in evidence and procedural lapses by the Prosecution.

Facts
The case involves an Appeal filed by Patel Babubhai Manohardas and others (the Appellants) against a judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court on December 17, 2013, which upheld their conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on May 12, 2011.

The Appellants were convicted under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 114 (abettor present when the offence is committed) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each. The conviction was based on the alleged abetment of the suicide of Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar, who was found dead on April 25, 2009, due to consumption of poison. A suicide note recovered from his possession implicated Geetaben (Accused No. 3) and her family, alleging that they had blackmailed him using compromising photos and videos. The deceased was reportedly under financial distress due to demands made by the Accused and was also facing charges of misappropriation at his workplace.

Issues

Whether the Appellants abetted the suicide of Dashrathbhai under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC.
Whether the suicide note, which implicated the accused in acts of blackmail, was credible and admissible as evidence.
Whether the Prosecution’s evidence, including witness testimonies and the suicide note, was sufficient to prove abetment beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the procedural lapses, such as the delayed filing of the FIR and the absence of crucial evidence like the poison container, impacted the case against the accused.

Contentions by Both Parties

Appellants’ Arguments:

The Appellants contended that the Prosecution’s case was unsubstantiated due to the lack of material evidence, such as the alleged video cassettes and photographs used for blackmailing the deceased. They argued that the suicide note, presented 20 days post-incident, was unreliable and could not be considered credible evidence without proper scrutiny. Moreover, they emphasized that there was no direct or proximate act of incitement by the Appellants leading to the suicide, a necessary condition for conviction under Section 306 IPC. The Appellants also highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly those of Amrutbhai Karshanbhai Parmar (PW-6) and Jayantibhai (PW-7), regarding the discovery of the suicide note. Additionally, they pointed out that no money or ornaments allegedly taken through blackmail were recovered from them, suggesting that the charges were fabricated.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State of Gujarat argued that the suicide note, verified by a handwriting expert, explicitly implicated the Appellants in blackmailing the deceased with compromising photos and videos, which led him to commit suicide. The Prosecution relied on the testimonies of the deceased’s wife (PW-2) and brother (PW-6), who corroborated the claims of harassment and blackmail. The Respondent asserted that the presence of the suicide note was a strong piece of evidence, and the Appellants actions amounted to abetment under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC. They further contended that the conviction was justified based on the combination of oral and documentary evidence.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found significant inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the Prosecution’s case. The Court noted the unexplained 20-day delay in the submission of the suicide note and the conflicting testimonies regarding its discovery. Moreover, the failure to recover the poison container and the lack of corroborative evidence, such as the recovery of the alleged blackmail material, weakened the Prosecution’s claims. The Court also highlighted that the handwriting expert, whose report was pivotal to establishing the authenticity of the suicide note, was not examined in court, thereby denying the Appellants the opportunity to cross-examine. Citing precedents like Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618) and Kumar @ Shiva Kumar vs. State of Karnataka (2024 INSC 156), the Court emphasized that mere harassment or discord, without a proximate and direct act of instigation, could not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the Prosecution failed to establish a clear and unbroken chain of evidence proving the Appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, and acquitted the Appellants, discharging their bail bonds.

Baddam Parichaya Reddy
Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled ‘LAWS FOR WOMEN IN INDIA’, can be viewed at the link below: