306 IPC, Latest Judgment Supreme Court

 Mere Harassment Not Enough for Abetment of Suicide 

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jayedeepsingh Pravinsingh Chavda and others V. State of Gujarat SCC Cri 652  decided on 10 December 2024 held that Mere harassment, by itself, not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide. It is also said that the ingredient for the offence under Section 306 IPC are not made out even on a preliminary analysis of the material on record. Therefore, they cannot be charged under section 306 IPC and hence they are entitled to be discharged. Mere Harassment Not Enough for Abetment of Suicide. supreme court discharges husband in wife's suicide case.

Brief Facts:

The fact is that the father of the deceased lodged an FIR on 18/04/2021 against the appellants herein for offences under section 306, 498A, 114 IPC. It was alleged that the appellant accused had sold her gold ornaments, which given to her as stridhan during the marriage and whenever she demanded the same back, she physically and mentally tortured.

The informant received the information that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself, it was also alleged that due to physical and mental cruelty by the appellant accused that the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. Deceased wife committed suicide after 12 month of the marriage. The appellants had earlier sought quashing of FIR, which petition was rejected by the High Court. Thereafter the appellants moved an application under section 227 of the CrPC seeking discharge on the ground the prima facie material for the offence of abetment under section 107 of the IPC was not made out against them. The session court vide order dated 28/02/2024 dismissed the discharge application. After that appellants challenged the above order before the High Court in a Criminal Revision, wherein the same was dismissed by the High court.

Issues Arise:

The issues raised in the case were related to the accused can be discharged for the offences under 306 and 498A IPC.

Whether a prima facie case under Section 498A is made out against the appellant/ accused.

Whether a prima facie case under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the appellant/accused

Whether the appellant/ accused can be discharged for the offence under section 306 and 498A IPC

Citing U. Suwetha v State, the court laid down the following ingredient to constitute the offence under section 498A IPC: the women must be married, she  must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and such cruelty or harassment must have been done either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband. State of A.P. v M. Madhusudhan Rao.

The Court observed essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC are:

i.       the abetment;

ii.    the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

Court Analysis, Reasoning:

The Court examined that the Deceased not made a single compliant for cruelty or harassment against the applicant in the twelve of marriage, and the court also examines whether the accused's conduct, including provoking, inciting or insulting the self-respect of the victim, has created an intolerable situation. If the accused's actions were intended merely to harass or express anger, they cannot meet the threshold of provocation or scrutiny. Each case requires a careful evolution of the facts, considering the accused's intent and its effect on the victim.

The ingredients for the offence under Section 306 IPC are not made out even on a preliminary analysis of the material on record. It is further stated that the act must be clearly demonstrated through the actions or behaviours of the accused that directly contributed to the victim’s decision to take their own life.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the act of the accused is so compelling that the victim had no choice but to take their own life. Prima facie no offence made out under section 306 IPC. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the appellants did not have the requisite mens rea nor did they do any positive or direct act or omission to incite/instigate or aid the deceased to commit suicide.

The appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, they are discharged from the charges under section 306 IPC. Criminal  Appeal  decided on  December 10, 2024.

FAQ:

1. What is the recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding abetment of suicide?

Answer: The Supreme Court held that mere harassment is not enough to establish abetment of suicide.

2. What were the charges against the appellants in the case of Jayedeepsingh Pravinsingh Chavda and others V. State of Gujarat?

Answer: The appellants were charged with offences under section 306, 498A, 114 IPC.

3. What led the father of the deceased to lodge an FIR against the appellants?

Answer: It was alleged that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured by the appellants, which compelled her to commit suicide.

4. How long after the marriage did the deceased wife commit suicide?

Answer: The deceased wife committed suicide after 12 months of the marriage.

5. What were the allegations against the appellants regarding the deceased's gold ornaments?

Answer: It was alleged that the appellants sold her gold ornaments, which were given to her as stridhan during the marriage.

6. What were the issues raised in the case?

Answer: The issues raised were related to whether a prima facie case under Section 498A and 306 IPC is made out against the appellants and whether they can be discharged for the said offences.

7. What essential ingredients did the court lay down to constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC?

Answer: The essential ingredients are that the woman must be married, subjected to cruelty or harassment, and such acts must be done by the husband or his relatives.

8. What did the Court observe regarding the offence under Section 306 IPC?

Answer: The court observed that the intention of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide is crucial.

9. What did the Court examine regarding the deceased's complaints of cruelty or harassment against the applicants?

Answer: The Court examined that the deceased did not make any complaints of cruelty in the twelve months of marriage.

10. What did the Court emphasize regarding the accused's intent in cases of abetment of suicide?

Answer: The Court emphasized that the accused's actions must directly contribute to the victim's decision to take their own life.

11. What is the conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the charges under section 306 IPC against the appellants?

Answer: The Supreme Court held that prima facie, no offence is made out under section 306 IPC, and the appellants are discharged from the charges.

12. What is the significance of proving mens rea in cases of abetment of suicide?

Answer: It is essential to prove the accused's intention or mens rea to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

13. What actions must be demonstrated by the accused to establish abetment of suicide?

Answer: The accused's actions must directly contribute to the victim's decision to take their own life.

14. How did the Supreme Court analyze the material on record in this case?

Answer: The Supreme Court found that the ingredients for the offence under Section 306 IPC were not made out even on a preliminary analysis of the material on record.

15. What is the takeaway from this ruling regarding abetment of suicide cases?

Answer: The ruling clarifies that mere harassment is not enough to establish abetment of suicide, and the accused must have the requisite intention and direct contribution to the victim's decision to commit suicide.

Read More : New Provisons  added under BNS