SUPREME COURT QUASHES CHARGESHEET IN ABETMENT OF SUICIDE CASE FOR LACK OF PROXIMATE INSTIGATION

The Judgment in the Case of Shenbagavalli And Ors. Vs.The Inspector Of Police, Kancheepuram District And Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 4268 and 4269 of 2024 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih on 30^th April 2025. This case deals with the question of whether the alleged harassment of the deceased by the Appellants amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, warranting the quashing of the chargesheet filed against them.

Facts of the case

The deceased, Dinesh, an engineer, married Pushpakalashree (Accused No. 7), an MBA graduate, on September 15, 2013. Soon after the marriage, their relationship deteriorated. The Prosecution alleged that on November 10, 2013, Accused Nos. 1 to 6 visited the deceased’s residence and engaged in a quarrel, during which they verbally abused the deceased and his family using offensive language and insulted the deceased by calling him impotent and infertile. Following this incident, Accused No. 7 accompanied Accused Nos. 1 to 6 to her parental home. The Prosecution’s case was that from November 10, 2013 to December 9, 2013 the deceased was continuously subjected to harassment by all the accused, leading him to commit suicide. Initially, the police registered a case under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) based on a complaint by the deceased’s younger brother. It was also alleged that while taking Accused No. 7 with them, the other co-accused threatened to file a dowry case against the deceased and his mother to get them arrested. Due to the alleged shame, degradation, and depression, the deceased reportedly stopped leaving his house. During the investigation, the deceased’s mother provided torn pages of a diary, purportedly maintained by the deceased, containing a suicide note detailing the continuous harassment he faced from Accused Nos. 1 to 7. Consequently, the First Information Report (FIR) was altered to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the Appellants, which was submitted to the Court of Sessions. The Appellants then filed a Petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Madras High Court seeking to quash the chargesheet, arguing that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC were not met based on the alleged suicide note. The High Court dismissed this Petition, leading to the present Appeals before the Supreme Court.

The main issues

1. Whether the allegations in the chargesheet and the alleged suicide note disclosed sufficient grounds to frame a charge under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide against the Appellants
2. Whether the proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Appellant’s Contentions

The Appellants contended that the alleged suicide note did not specify the date it was written, and no forensic report confirming the handwriting to be that of the deceased was placed on record. They argued that the incident of alleged harassment occurred on November 10, 2013, a month prior to the suicide on December 9, 2013. They pointed out that according to the suicide note, Accused No. 7 and two others visited the deceased’s house only once after the initial incident, on November 11, 2013, and there was no further contact thereafter. The Appellants argued that there was no act of instigation in close temporal proximity to the suicide and that the language in the suicide note did not reflect a direct inducement to commit suicide. They submitted that even if the notes were written by the deceased, his reaction appeared to be disproportionate, and the alleged insult, especially after a month’s gap, could not be considered sufficient provocation to drive a reasonable person to suicide. The Appellants relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support their contention that the ingredients of abetment of suicide were not met.

Respondent’s Contentions

The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the allegations in the suicide note were sufficient to prima facie support the commission of the offence by the Appellants and that it was a matter for trial to be decided based on evidence. They supported the judgment of the High Court and sought dismissal of the Appeals.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the alleged suicide note, allowed the Appeals and quashed the chargesheet and the proceedings pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge. The Court observed that the suicide note primarily attributed the suicide to the failed marriage between the deceased and Accused No. 7. The triggering incident mentioned was the quarrel on November 10, 2013, where the Appellants allegedly abused and insulted the deceased and his mother. The Court noted that after Accused No. 7 left with the other accused, they publicly stated that the deceased was impotent and his wife threatened to post his nude photographs online. However, the Court emphasized that from November 11, 2013, until the suicide on December 9, 2013, there was no contact between the deceased or his relatives and the Appellants through any means, indicating a lack of continuous harassment or pressure in close proximity to the suicide.

The Court held that the contents of the FIR did not indicate any active or direct act that compelled the deceased to commit suicide, leaving him with no other option. The Court stated that no abetment was established, as there was no instigation or persistent cruelty or harassment in the period leading up to the suicide. The Court reiterated that mens rea cannot be presumed and must be evident, which was missing in this case. Referring to Section 107 IPC, the Court highlighted that abetment requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, none of which were sufficiently demonstrated. The Court cited previous judgments emphasizing that mere insulting language does not constitute abetment of suicide unless there is evidence suggesting the accused intended to instigate the deceased to take such a step. The Court concluded that the essential ingredients for an offence under Section 306 IPC were not fulfilled, and allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of law.

Parichaya Reddy

Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services