New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that an accusation of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained merely on the basis of allegations of an illicit relationship between the accused and the deceased’s spouse.
The Court held that for a charge under Section 306 to hold, there must be a positive act of instigation or incitement, with a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide, which must stand in close proximity to the act of suicide itself. In the absence of such material, putting an accused through trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar in Balaji Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., 2026 INSC 375. The Court set aside the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court and quashed the charge framed against the appellant under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The case arose from the death of one Komal Sahu, whose body was discovered hanging from a tree. A Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted to probe the incident, ultimately ruled out homicide and concluded in its final report that the death was a case of suicide by hanging. During the investigation, witness statements alleged that the deceased’s wife, Revati Bai, had repeatedly humiliated him in the presence of the appellant and that the appellant was engaged in an illicit relationship with her. On this basis, both Revati Bai and the appellant were arraigned as accused, with the prosecution alleging that they had subjected the deceased to mental cruelty and had abetted him in taking his own life.
The appellant challenged the charge before the High Court by way of a revision application, contending that the material collected by the prosecution was wholly insufficient to make out an offence under Section 306. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the statements of family members of the deceased prima facie established that the accused’s conduct had driven the deceased to take his own life. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
The Court commenced its analysis by reiterating the settled principles governing the offence of abetment of suicide. Referring to its earlier decision in Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra, it observed that Section 306 IPC is attracted only when two essential ingredients are established: first, the commission of suicide by a person, and second, the abetment of that act by another. The Court further clarified that, to satisfy the requirement of abetment, the prosecution must establish one of the circumstances contemplated under Section 107 IPC, namely instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. This, the Court held, necessitates proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement occurring in close proximity to the suicide, coupled with a clear mens rea to drive the victim towards the act, such that the circumstances leave the deceased with no reasonable alternative except to end his or her life.
The Court further underscored that the existence of mens rea is a sine qua non for the offence of abetment of suicide and cannot be presumed or lightly inferred. Rather, the intention to provoke, incite, or encourage the commission of suicide must be clearly evident and explicitly discernible from the material on record. The Court further held that there must be a proximate and live link between the alleged acts of instigation and the suicide itself, such that the deceased’s act can reasonably be said to have been the direct consequence of the accused’s conduct.
Applying these settled principles to the facts of the case, the Court concluded that the prosecution evidence was wholly insufficient to sustain the charge of abetment of suicide. The statements of family members and neighbours merely indicated that the deceased was addicted to alcohol, that he and the appellant frequently consumed liquor together, and that the deceased’s wife would reprimand him for spending his own money on liquor while not objecting when the appellant supplied it. The only allegation regarding an illicit relationship between the appellant and the deceased’s wife stemmed from a statement made by the deceased’s son nearly five months after the incident and was based purely on suspicion.
The Court noted that, apart from these vague and general assertions, the record contained no material demonstrating any act of instigation, intentional aid, or conduct proximate enough to establish abetment within the meaning of Sections 306 and 107 IPC.
Crucially, the last interaction between the appellant and the deceased took place on the night of May 5, 2024, when they consumed liquor together between 9 and 10 PM, whereas the suicide was discovered only on the morning of May 7, 2024. The Court found no material indicating any act of instigation or incitement during the intervening period, much less one having the requisite proximity to the act of suicide.
The Court then addressed the State’s primary argument that the illicit affair, combined with the wife’s humiliation of the deceased in the appellant’s presence, was sufficient to constitute abetment. The Court firmly rejected this contention, observing:
“Even if we proceed on the premise that there were illicit relations between the appellant and the wife of the deceased, the clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide by Komal is absent. There is no allegation that the appellant had instigated Komal to commit suicide or that he had in some way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. Further, there is no material on record to infer that Komal was left with no other option except to commit suicide.”
The Court further noted that no suicide note was recovered from the deceased and that the allegations regarding an illicit relationship were, by the prosecution’s own showing, hearsay in nature. It held that these circumstances, even if accepted at their highest, failed to disclose any act amounting to instigation or abetment of suicide.
The Court fortified its conclusion by relying on Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, wherein it was observed that prosecutions under Section 306 IPC warrant a greater degree of judicial caution since the deceased, being the principal witness, is unavailable for cross-examination. It reiterated that only specific allegations backed by definite and credible material can justify compelling an accused to face trial for abetment of suicide.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the charge against the appellant and discharged him from the criminal proceedings. The trial against the co-accused, Revati Bai, was directed to proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment.
Case Title: Balaji Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., 2026 INSC 375.
