Boyfriend's Family Merely Opposing The Relationship On A Single Occasion Not Sufficient To Attract Offence Of Abetment Of Suicide: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court recently discharged a mother-daughter duo booked in an abetment to suicide case for allegedly opposing the relationship of the son with the deceased due to her caste.

Justice MS Karnik set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting their discharge application observing –

“Amol was in a love relationship with the deceased for a considerable period of time. In the present facts, mere expression of opposition of the applicants to the relationship on one occasion without anything more is not sufficient to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. In my view, a plain reading of Section 306 of IPC and applying it to the undisputed facts of the present case indicates that none of the ingredients are attracted to the case at hand.”

The mother of the deceased filed an FIR against one Amol Dabhade alleging that Amol's conduct, particularly his engagement to another girl despite his relationship with the deceased, compelled her to take her own life.

However, the involvement of the applicants (his mother and sister) surfaced subsequently, primarily through a supplementary statement provided by the complainant. It was alleged that they expressed opposition to the relationship between Amol and the deceased due to her caste. Further, they were accused of insulting and abusing the victim on the basis of her caste.

They were booked under Section 306 of the IPC read with Sections 3(2)(5A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thus, they filed the present petition.

The prosecution relied on a single instance mentioned in the supplementary statement by the complainant, where the victim revealed that the applicants opposed her relationship and marriage due to her caste. Additionally, the statement of a friend of the victim indicated opposition from the family members of the main accused, Amol, to the relationship.

The court referred to Supreme Court judgments in Prabhu v. State and Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka which underscored that to establish abetment, it must be proven that the accused directly or indirectly instigated or aided in the commission of suicide. The apex court emphasized the requirement of a clear mens rea and an active or direct act by the accused leading to the suicide. It further underscored that it needs to be ascertained in each case if the alleged harassment or cruelty left the victim with no option but to commit suicide.

Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the court deemed mere opposition to a relationship insufficient to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC. The court concluded that even if the allegations made by the complainant and the prosecution were true, the applicants did not instigate or conspire with others to induce the deceased to commit suicide.

It noted that the main accused, Amol, was in a long-term romantic relationship with the deceased, and while there were assertions of opposition to the marriage by the applicants, they were vague and lacked substantial evidence.

The court lamented the unfortunate incident where the victim, an airhostess, took her own life due to a strained relationship. However, based on a plain reading of Section 306 IPC and the undisputed facts, the court found that none of the elements of the alleged offenses were met. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order.

Case no. – Criminal Revision Application No. 285/2023

Case Title – Mangal Kashinath Dabhade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra