The High Court of Kerala has clarified that mere harsh words spoken in the heat of an argument, without proven intent to instigate suicide, cannot sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC. This ruling reinforces the necessity of mens rea in abetment cases and sets a critical boundary between emotional outbursts and criminal liability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the tragic suicide of a woman and her five-and-a-half-year-old daughter on 15 September 2023, after they jumped into a well. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, Safwan Adhur, had an extramarital relationship with the deceased. When she learned he was planning to marry another woman, she called him to confront him. During the ensuing phone argument, the petitioner allegedly said, "go away and die." The prosecution contended this statement constituted instigation under Section 306 IPC, leading to the framing of charges against him.
Procedural History
- 15 September 2023: Suicide of deceased and her daughter; FIR registered as Crime No. 577/2023
- 19 December 2023: Charge sheet filed by Melparamba Police Station
- 8 July 2025: Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against petitioner under Sections 306 and 204 IPC
- 21 January 2026: Petitioner filed criminal revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 BNSS challenging the framing order
- 28 January 2026: High Court heard the petition and delivered judgment
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought discharge from charges under Section 306 IPC and Section 204 IPC, arguing that the alleged statement lacked the requisite intent to abet suicide and did not meet the threshold for instigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the phrase "go away and die," uttered during a heated phone argument, constitutes instigation under Section 306 IPC, or whether mens rea - a deliberate intention to cause suicide - must be proven for the offence to be made out.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. and Cyriac v. S.I. of Police to argue that words spoken in the heat of passion, without any premeditated design, cannot amount to instigation. They emphasized that Section 306 IPC requires active encouragement or deliberate urging, not mere emotional outbursts. The counsel contended that the deceased’s fragile mental state, while tragic, cannot be imputed as the accused’s intent.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor argued that the statement, even if uttered in anger, was a direct command to die and was sufficient to influence a vulnerable person. They relied on the factual context of the extramarital relationship and the deceased’s known emotional distress to suggest that the words were not casual but targeted and consequential.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous examination of the legal definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC and the judicial interpretation of instigation in prior precedents. It held that instigation requires more than a provocative remark - it demands a conscious incitement to commit a specific act. The Court distinguished between words spoken in anger and those spoken with the purpose of causing suicide.
"Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
The Court further cited Cyriac v. S.I. of Police, affirming that the focus must be on what the accused intended, not what the deceased felt. It rejected the notion that an indirect psychological impact, however tragic, can substitute for criminal intent. The Court noted that the deceased’s suicide note and psychological vulnerability, while relevant to understanding context, cannot transform a spontaneous insult into a criminal act under Section 306 IPC.
The Court also observed that Section 204 IPC (destruction of evidence) could not stand independently without a substantive offence under Section 306 IPC. Since the primary charge failed, the ancillary charge collapsed.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that Section 306 IPC requires proof of intentional instigation with mens rea, which was absent in this case. The framing order under Sections 306 and 204 IPC was set aside, and the petitioner was discharged.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Instigation Must Be Deliberate, Not Emotional
- Practitioners must now demonstrate specific intent to cause suicide, not merely show that the accused’s words were harsh or provocative
- Casual phrases like "go die" or "you should kill yourself" in arguments will not suffice unless tied to evidence of premeditation or targeted encouragement
- Prosecutors must collect digital evidence, prior threats, or patterns of coercion to establish instigation
Mental State of Victim Is Not a Substitute for Accused’s Intent
- The deceased’s psychological fragility, while relevant to context, cannot be used to infer the accused’s criminal intent
- Courts will not equate tragic outcomes with criminal liability absent proof of purposeful instigation
- Defence counsel should emphasize the absence of prior threats, repeated harassment, or direct encouragement in similar cases
Discharge Under BNSS Is a Viable Remedy for Weak Charges
- Accused may successfully seek discharge under Sections 438 and 442 BNSS where the allegations, even if accepted, do not constitute a cognizable offence
- This judgment reinforces that courts must scrutinize the prima facie case before framing charges, preventing misuse of criminal process
- Lawyers should consider early discharge applications in suicide abetment cases where the conduct falls short of active instigation
