For Abetment Of Suicide Offence, Alleged Harassment Must Have Left Victim With No Other Alternative But To End Life : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court while quashing charges of abetment of suicide against the present appellants, reiterated that the alleged harassment should be of such nature that it leaves the victim with no other alternative but to end their life.

Further, the accused's intention to aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide must be established. Reliance was placed on a plethora of decisions, with the recent one being Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

"In order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide."

The genesis of the present case lies in the suspected relationship between the son of the first appellant, one Ziaul Rahman (since deceased) and the complainant's cousin Tanu (since deceased). An FIR was lodged by the appellant alleging that Tanu's relatives had beaten his son. Pursuant to this incident, the appellant's son succumbed to the injuries.

Following this, as per the allegations, the appellants humiliated Tanu and tortured Tanu, blaming her for their son's death. According to the complainant, this led to her cousin's suicide. A case for abetment of suicide was initiated by the complainant. Challenging this, the appellants approached the High Court, seeking to quash these proceedings.

However, the High Court refused to quash the same, holding that there was a proximate link between the suicide and the act of the accused. The High Court added that the deceased was a hypersensitive girl and she was very much depressed and felt humiliated. Against this background, the present appeal was filed.

At the outset, the Bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and K.V Viswanathan observed that the charge sheet was filed on the basis of the complainant's statements. Notably, the investigation did not explore any other angle. The Court recorded that the charge sheet accepted the complainant's version as a gospel truth.

“We are today left with the one sided version of the complainant R-2. Was there anything more sinister? Even if it was suicide what was the real cause? Was the deceased Tanu distraught with what happened to her friend Ziaul Rahman? Considering the under-currents and the disapproval of the relationship, was there any instigation for the suicide from any other quarter? Did the deceased Tanu resort to the extreme action of taking away her own life due to the ugly turn of the events and due to the fact that her family members were suspected to be involved? We have no answers today.,” the Court said.

Moving forward, the Court observed that the ingredients for abetment of suicide are not even remotely mentioned in the charge sheet. Further, the verbal utterances by the appellant cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased with no other alternative but to end her life.

“The surrounding circumstances, particularly the prior lodgment of the FIR by the first appellant against the family of Tanu for the death of his son Ziaul Rahman, does indicate an element of desperation on the part of the respondent no. 2 to somehow implicate the appellants.,” the Court added.

In view of this, the Court observed that the present proceedings would lead to abuse of process and thus quashed them. However, highlighting the need for reinvestigation, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to constitute a Special Investigation Team and investigate the deceased's unnatural death. The Court also made it clear that the reinvestigation would be carried out independently without the present finding affecting it.

“The Director General of Police, Law and Order, State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer of the level of Deputy Inspector General of Police to investigate the unnatural death of Tanu ..... We authorize the Special Investigation Team to treat the first information report registered in crime no. 367 of 2022 at PS Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur as one of unnatural death. We further grant them liberty to re-register the FIR if they deem it appropriate. We direct that the reinvestigation report shall be placed before this Court in a sealed cover within a period of two months from today.,” the Court ordered.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Mr. Bhuwan Raj, AOR Ms. Manju Savita, Adv. Ms. Kiran Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Raman Singh, Adv.

Respondent: Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Ms. Preeti Goel, Adv. Mr. Dhawal Uniyal, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv. Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Mr. Amit Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Ashu Bhindwar, Adv. Ms. Sneha Chandna, Adv. Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Adv.

Case Name: AYYUB vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH., Diary No. - 21115/2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Click here to read/ download the judgment