Section 306 IPC | False Promise of Marriage Without Active Instigation Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide : Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that a mere refusal to marry, even after making a false promise of marriage, does not automatically constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. While suspending the sentence of an appellant convicted for abetment, the Court emphasized the need for cogent evidence of intentional instigation, aid, or active participation in the suicide. This order underscores the high threshold required to establish criminal liability in cases involving personal relationships and emotional distress.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Sanjay alias Sanju, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, on 14.10.2025 in Session Case No. 98/2020 for abetting the suicide of a woman under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner established a physical relationship with the deceased on the false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her, leading to her suicide.

Key Facts

• The deceased allegedly entered into a relationship with the petitioner based on his promise of marriage
• Upon the petitioner’s refusal to marry, the deceased committed suicide
• The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide
• The petitioner filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1991/2025 seeking suspension of his sentence pending appeal

Procedural History

• 14.10.2025: Petitioner convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Session Case No. 98/2020
• Post-14.10.2025: Petitioner lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur
• 2025: Petitioner filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2476/2025 against the conviction
• 2025: Petitioner filed the present application for suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNSS (389 CrPC)
• 07.07.2026: Rajasthan High Court heard the application for suspension of sentence

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought suspension of his sentence pending the disposal of S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2476/2025, arguing:

• The evidence on record does not establish the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC
• The conviction was based on insufficient evidence
• The appeal is unlikely to be heard soon due to pendency
• The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and poses no flight risk

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether a mere refusal to marry, following a false promise of marriage, constitutes abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, absent evidence of intentional instigation, aid, or active participation in the suicide.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The evidence on record does not disclose the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC, namely, intentional instigation, aid, or active participation in the suicide
• A mere refusal to marry, even if a promise was made earlier, does not by itself constitute abetment of suicide
• The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is unlikely to abscond
• The appeal is not likely to be heard soon due to heavy pendency of criminal appeals before the High Court

For the Respondent

• The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence
• The prosecution relied on the trial court’s findings, which held the petitioner liable for abetment based on the deceased’s suicide following his refusal to marry

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the arguments and the material on record to determine whether the petitioner’s conviction under Section 306 IPC was sustainable. The Court noted that Section 306 IPC requires proof of intentional instigation, aid, or active participation in the suicide. Mere emotional distress or refusal to marry, without evidence of active abetment, does not satisfy the legal threshold for conviction.

The Court observed that the trial court’s judgment did not adequately address whether the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC were established. It emphasized that criminal liability cannot be imposed based on assumptions or inferences drawn from personal relationships. The Court also considered the pendency of criminal appeals and the petitioner’s clean antecedents as relevant factors for granting suspension of sentence.

"The allegation against the applicant-appellant is that he established a physical relationship with the deceased on the false promise of marriage and, upon subsequently refusing to marry her, the deceased committed suicide. The material available on record does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide, namely, any intentional act of instigation, aid, or active participation on the part of the applicant-appellant in the commission of suicide by the deceased."

The Verdict

The Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence. The sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, on 14.10.2025 in Session Case No. 98/2020 was suspended pending the disposal of S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2476/2025. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court in January of every year until the appeal is decided
2. If the petitioner changes his place of residence, he shall inform the trial court and his counsel in writing
3. The sureties shall similarly inform the trial court of any change in their address
4. The trial court shall maintain a separate file for the petitioner’s attendance and compliance with bail conditions

The Court further directed that the trial court shall report any non-compliance to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

What This Means For Similar Cases

The Burden of Proof in Abetment Cases

• The judgment reinforces that Section 306 IPC requires strict proof of intentional instigation, aid, or active participation in the suicide
• Mere emotional distress, such as refusal to marry after a false promise, is insufficient to establish abetment
• Prosecutors must present cogent evidence linking the accused’s actions to the deceased’s suicide

Bail Conditions and Judicial Discretion

• Courts may suspend sentences pending appeal where the conviction appears prima facie unsustainable
• The judgment highlights the importance of considering pendency of appeals and the accused’s antecedents in bail applications
• Trial courts must maintain separate records for compliance with bail conditions to ensure accountability