The Calcutta High Court has affirmed the acquittal of two accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that sustained threats over time, without proximate instigation or direct causal link to the act of suicide, do not satisfy the legal threshold for abetment. The judgment reinforces the requirement of active, immediate encouragement or coercion in suicide cases, setting a critical precedent for prosecution under this provision.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ashok Kumar Kundu, filed a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of the private respondents - Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 - by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri, in Sessions Case No. 428 of 2016. The respondents were charged under Section 306/34 IPC for abetting the suicide of the victim, who consumed carbolic acid on 18.08.2015. The appellant, father of the deceased, contended that the respondents’ persistent harassment, including threats to publish intimate photographs of the victim and his wife on social media, directly led to the victim’s mental breakdown and eventual suicide.
Key Facts
- The victim, a resident of Jalpaiguri, died on 18.08.2015 after consuming carbolic acid
- The post-mortem and viscera reports (Exhibits 9, 10, 11) confirmed death due to carbolic acid poisoning
- The victim’s suicide note was recovered from the lift room of his apartment on 19.08.2015
- Respondent No. 2 was a childhood friend of the victim and had regular access to his home
- Respondent No. 2 allegedly copied intimate photographs of the victim and his wife (P.W.2) from the victim’s mobile phone
- Respondent No. 2 threatened to publish these photographs on social media if the victim did not comply with his demands
- On 05.08.2015, Respondent No. 2 handed over a mobile phone with a SIM card to P.W.2, threatening harm to the family if she did not maintain contact
- The victim seized the phone, returned it excluding the SIM, but threats continued via anonymous calls
- The victim was sent to Durgapur on 13.08.2015 for mental health treatment
- He returned on 16.08.2015 and committed suicide on 18.08.2015, four to five days later
- Call Detail Records (Exhibit 12) showed multiple calls between the victim and Respondent No. 2 between 01.01.2015 and 18.08.2015, but no calls on the day of death
- Respondent No. 2 was not present at the scene of suicide; no evidence placed him at the victim’s residence on 18.08.2015
- The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, including the victim’s father (P.W.1), wife (P.W.2), brother (P.W.3), and forensic and telecom experts
- Respondent No. 2 and No. 3 denied all allegations under Section 313 CrPC and did not adduce any defence witnesses
Procedural History
- 18.08.2015: Victim commits suicide
- 19.08.2015: Suicide note recovered; inquest initiated
- 20.08.2015: FIR registered at Jalpaiguri Police Station
- 07.06.2017: Charges framed under Section 306/34 IPC
- 09.08.2019: Additional Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri, acquits both respondents
- 25.03.2026: Calcutta High Court hears appeal and affirms acquittal
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
The appellant argued that the respondents’ conduct constituted active abetment under Section 306 IPC. He relied on Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 76) to assert that persistent threats, even if not immediate, can amount to instigation if they create a situation where suicide becomes the only perceived escape. He emphasized the call records, threats to publish intimate photos, and the victim’s documented depression as sufficient to establish guilt. He further cited Manju Lakra v. State of Assam (2013(4) GLT 333) to argue that appellate courts may reappreciate evidence in acquittal appeals.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not appear. No arguments were advanced on behalf of the respondents.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought reversal of the acquittal, conviction of the respondents under Section 306/34 IPC, and appropriate sentencing. He also sought a direction for compensation to the victim’s family.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the persistent threats and alleged harassment by the respondents, occurring over several months and culminating in suicide four to five days after the victim’s return from treatment, amounted to active instigation under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, or whether the absence of proximate causation and direct coercion rendered the charge unsustainable.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that the respondents’ conduct met the test for abetment as laid down in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh. He argued that the repeated threats to expose intimate photographs, coupled with the victim’s documented mental deterioration, created a coercive environment that left the victim with no alternative but to end his life. He emphasized that the call records and testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3 established a pattern of psychological torture. He further relied on Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024 INSC 320) to argue that the trial court’s failure to appreciate the cumulative effect of the evidence constituted a misreading of material facts, warranting appellate interference.
For the Respondent/State
No arguments were presented by the State or the respondents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reaffirming the settled principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that an acquittal strengthens this presumption. It held that an appellate court may interfere with an acquittal only if the judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading of evidence, or if no reasonable view other than guilt is possible (Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka).
The Court examined the prosecution’s case in light of Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which requires that for abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be a direct, proximate act of instigation or active facilitation that leaves the victim with no other option but to commit suicide. The Court noted that while the respondents’ conduct was morally reprehensible, the evidence did not establish a causal link between the threats and the act of suicide.
"The prosecution was unable to establish the requirement of instigation of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by their act of omission or by a continued course of conduct which created any circumstances such that the victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide."
The Court observed that the threats occurred over a period of months, with significant gaps between the last threat and the suicide. The victim had been sent for treatment, returned home, and died four to five days later. There was no evidence of any direct communication or confrontation on the day of death. The respondents were not present at the scene. The Court further held that the mere existence of threats, without evidence of immediate pressure or coercion at the time of the act, cannot be equated with instigation.
The Court also rejected the appellant’s reliance on Manju Lakra v. State of Assam, distinguishing it as a case involving culpable homicide, not abetment to suicide. It emphasized that the trial court had correctly identified lacunae in the investigation and prosecution, including the lack of corroboration for the alleged threats and the absence of any forensic or digital evidence linking the respondents to the final act.
The Court concluded that the trial judge’s acquittal was based on a plausible, evidence-based assessment and did not suffer from perversity or legal error.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Calcutta High Court affirmed the acquittal of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 306/34 IPC. No conviction, sentence, or compensation was ordered. The Court directed that a copy of the judgment and trial records be sent to the jurisdictional court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Instigation Must Be Proximate and Direct
- Prosecutions under Section 306 IPC must demonstrate a direct, proximate link between the accused’s conduct and the act of suicide
- Sustained harassment over weeks or months, without a final triggering act, is insufficient to establish abetment
- Courts will not infer instigation from general psychological pressure alone
Evidence of Presence or Communication on the Day of Death Is Critical
- Absence of the accused at the scene or on the day of suicide weakens the prosecution’s case significantly
- Call records alone, without context or timing proximity, cannot substitute for evidence of active instigation
- Digital evidence must be tied to the immediate period preceding the suicide to be legally relevant
Appellate Courts Will Not Substitute Their View for Trial Court’s Reasoned Acquittal
- Appellate interference requires more than disagreement - it demands perversity or legal error
- Where two views are possible, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused
- Trial courts’ evaluation of witness credibility and evidentiary gaps will be respected unless demonstrably flawed
