The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted an accused of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, holding that mere allegations of harassment, verbal abuse, or strained familial relations, without a direct and proximate act of instigation immediately preceding the suicide, cannot constitute the offence. The court emphasized that conviction under Section 306 requires clear evidence of intentional incitement or active aid that left the deceased with no other option but to end their life.
The Verdict
The accused, the husband of the deceased, was acquitted of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the trial court’s conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a direct, proximate, and intentional act of instigation or aid that compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The court reaffirmed that mere emotional distress, verbal altercations, or prior marital discord, without a specific act immediately preceding the suicide, cannot sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC.
Background & Facts
The deceased, a 35-year-old woman, was found dead by hanging at her residence on 23 June 2021. The prosecution alleged that her husband, the accused, had subjected her to continuous mental harassment, verbal abuse, and threats over several years due to her inability to bear children. The accused was also accused of demanding dowry and making derogatory remarks about her family.
The deceased had posted a WhatsApp status on the morning of her death stating she was being driven to suicide by her husband. This status was interpreted by the prosecution as a suicide note implicating the accused. However, no direct confrontation, threat, or violent act was recorded immediately before her death. The deceased had previously attempted suicide twice, once in 2019 and again in 2020, both times after disputes with her husband.
The trial court convicted the accused under Section 306 IPC, relying heavily on the WhatsApp status, past marital discord, and the deceased’s prior suicide attempts. The court held that the cumulative effect of harassment amounted to abetment. The accused appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and the trial court’s selective appreciation of facts.
The Legal Issue
Can a conviction under Section 306 IPC be sustained solely on the basis of prolonged marital discord, verbal abuse, and a suicide note in the form of a WhatsApp status, without evidence of a direct, proximate, and intentional act of instigation or aid immediately preceding the suicide?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, the accused, argued that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC. He contended that while marital discord existed, there was no evidence of any act or omission by him on the day of the suicide that directly incited or compelled her to end her life. The WhatsApp status, he argued, was a general expression of distress, not a specific accusation of instigation. He cited Supreme Court precedents in Geo Varghese, Ude Singh, and Mariano Anto Bruno, which require a clear, active, and proximate act of instigation.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the deceased’s repeated suicide attempts, the WhatsApp status, and the history of verbal abuse and dowry demands collectively demonstrated a pattern of mental cruelty that left her with no option but to commit suicide. It relied on the trial court’s finding that the cumulative effect of harassment amounted to abetment, and that the accused’s conduct was the proximate cause of her death.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the legal requirements for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. It emphasized that the offence requires not merely a state of mind of the deceased, but a positive, intentional act by the accused that directly led to the suicide.
"The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
The court rejected the trial court’s reliance on the WhatsApp status as conclusive evidence of instigation. It noted that the status was posted at 11:23 AM, and the deceased was found dead at approximately 7:00 PM - nearly seven hours later. There was no evidence of any further confrontation, threat, or coercive act during this period. The court held that a general expression of despair, without a proximate act of incitement, cannot be equated with legal instigation.
The court also distinguished between emotional abuse and criminal abetment. It cited M. Arjunan and Kashibai to affirm that abusive language, even if persistent, does not by itself constitute abetment unless it is shown to have been intended to drive the deceased to suicide at that precise moment.
The court further noted that the deceased had attempted suicide twice before, indicating a pre-existing vulnerability. The accused’s conduct, while morally reprehensible, did not meet the threshold of criminal liability under Section 306 IPC. The trial court’s failure to address the absence of a proximate act and its selective appreciation of evidence rendered the conviction legally unsustainable.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces the high threshold for conviction under Section 306 IPC. Practitioners must now ensure that prosecutions under this section are grounded in concrete, proximate acts of instigation or aid - not merely in a history of marital discord or emotional distress. A suicide note, even if digital, cannot substitute for evidence of direct incitement immediately preceding the act.
Future cases will require detailed timelines showing the sequence of events between the accused’s conduct and the suicide. Mere allegations of dowry demands, verbal abuse, or prior suicide attempts will no longer suffice. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove a direct causal link between the accused’s act and the suicide, with clear mens rea.
This ruling also serves as a caution against overcriminalization of domestic disputes. Courts must avoid conflating moral culpability with criminal liability. The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court’s consistent jurisprudence that criminal law must not be used as a tool for civil redress.
