Summary
The Supreme Court quashed the abetment-of-suicide proceedings against the mother of the deceased's boyfriend, holding that even taking the chargesheet and witness statements as true, her disapproval of the marriage and a remark that the deceased need not live if she could not live without her son were too remote and indirect to amount to instigation under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC.
Issues
- Whether, taking the prosecution material at face value, a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC was made out against the appellant, the mother of the deceased's boyfriend.
- What ingredients must be shown to sustain a charge under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860Quoted and read with Section 107; the Court held that the appellant's disapproval of the marriage and the alleged remark did not amount to abetment of suicide, so the charge could not be sustained against her. (¶¶ 7, 8, 13, 14)
- Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860The definition of abetment (instigation, conspiracy, intentional aid) was quoted and read with Section 306 to identify the ingredients of abetment of suicide: instigation, proximity to the suicide and clear mens rea. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The trial court had rejected the accused persons' discharge application, and the High Court had declined to interfere as regards the appellant; the Supreme Court set that aside and quashed the proceedings against her. (¶¶ 3, 15)
Held
- Read together, Sections 306 and 107 IPC require (i) direct or indirect instigation, (ii) in close proximity to the suicide, and (iii) a clear mens rea to abet the suicide; there must be a positive act creating a situation in which the deceased is left with no option but to end her life. (¶¶ 8, 10, 14)
- A casual remark, a reprimand or words spoken in anger or emotion without intending the consequence do not amount to instigation. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Even if all the material, including the chargesheet and witness statements, were accepted, there was no evidence against the appellant; her acts were too remote and indirect to constitute the offence, and it was in fact the deceased's family, not the appellant's, that opposed the relationship. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The appellant's disapproval of her son marrying the deceased, and a remark that the deceased need not be alive if she could not live without him, do not rise to the level of instigation of suicide. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order set aside insofar as it upheld the charge against the appellant; the sessions case quashed as against the appellant only, with the trial court free to proceed against the remaining accused (the boyfriend) in accordance with law.