Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 05, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 322

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

When can words or actions be considered as instigating someone to commit suicide? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat. This case revolves around the conviction of the appellants under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly abetting the suicide of the deceased. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven that the accused’s actions directly led the deceased to take his own life.

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered the judgment, scrutinizing the evidence and legal principles surrounding abetment to suicide. The core issue was whether the alleged blackmailing and harassment by the accused persons constituted a proximate cause for the deceased’s suicide, warranting a conviction under Section 306 IPC.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Jaybalaben, the wife of the deceased, Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai, on May 14, 2009. She reported that on April 25, 2009, she found her husband dead at their residence, suspecting he had consumed poison. According to Jaybalaben, her husband was being blackmailed by Geetaben and her family members, who had allegedly taken compromising photographs and videos of him. This blackmail led him to misappropriate money from his office and give away jewelry, ultimately driving him to suicide.

Jaybalaben stated that about a year prior to the incident, a case of misappropriation was registered against her husband. He confessed that Geetaben had trapped him in a love affair and was blackmailing him for money. Despite attempts by Jayantibhai, Jaybalaben’s brother-in-law, to recover the money and jewelry, the accused persons did not return them, which further distressed Dashrathbhai.

A two-page note was found in Dashrathbhai’s pocket, which revealed that Geetaben and her family members were blackmailing him after taking compromising photographs and videos. He had also given away his daughter’s jewelry to Geetaben and her family. Unable to cope with the situation, Dashrathbhai consumed poison.

Timeline:

Date Event
April 25, 2009 Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai found dead at his residence, suspected of consuming poison.
May 14, 2009 Jaybalaben lodges FIR with Mehsana Taluka police station, alleging abetment to suicide by the appellants.
May 15, 2009 Police record statements of Jaybalaben and other witnesses.
May 12, 2011 Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, convicts the appellants under Sections 306/114 of IPC.
December 17, 2013 High Court of Gujarat dismisses the appellants’ appeal and affirms the trial court’s conviction and sentence.
April 7, 2014 Supreme Court issues notice on the special leave petition and prayer for bail.
July 4, 2014 Supreme Court grants leave.
October 17, 2014 Supreme Court grants bail to appellant No. 4.
May 11, 2015 Supreme Court grants bail to appellant No. 1.
September 14, 2015 Supreme Court grants bail to appellant Nos. 2 and 3.
March 5, 2025 Supreme Court allows the appeal and sets aside the conviction, holding that there was no proximate cause for the suicide.

Course of Proceedings

The Mehsana Taluka police station registered the complaint as I.C.R. No. 107/2009 under Sections 306/114 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After investigation, the investigating officer filed a chargesheet against the appellants before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana. The case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, and numbered as Special Atrocities Case No. 53/2009.

The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and presented numerous documents to support its case. The appellants’ statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), where they denied the prosecution’s allegations and claimed false implication.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 306/114 of IPC but acquitted them of the charge under Section 3(2)(5) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Each appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fined Rs. 10,000.

The appellants challenged the trial court’s decision in the High Court of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2011), while the State of Gujarat filed Criminal Appeal No. 796/2011 seeking enhancement of the sentence. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The State’s appeal for enhancement was also dismissed.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case primarily involves Sections 306, 107, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Understanding these sections is crucial to determining whether the appellants’ actions constituted abetment to suicide.

  • ✓ Section 306 IPC: “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section defines the punishment for abetment of suicide.
  • ✓ Section 107 IPC: Defines “abetment.” A person abets the doing of a thing if he:

    • Instigates any person to do that thing; or
    • Engages with one or more other person(s) in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
    • Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

    Explanation 1 clarifies that misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact can constitute instigation. Explanation 2 clarifies that facilitating the commission of an act is considered aiding the doing of that act.

  • ✓ Section 114 IPC: States that if a person is present when an act or offense is committed for which they would be punishable due to their abetment, they shall be deemed to have committed such an act or offense and would be liable to be punished as an abettor.

These provisions collectively establish the legal basis for determining culpability in cases of abetment to suicide, requiring a clear demonstration of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.

Arguments

Both the appellants and the respondent presented detailed arguments to the Supreme Court. The appellants sought to overturn their conviction, while the respondent argued for upholding the High Court’s decision.

  • Arguments by the Appellants:
    • ✓ The prosecution’s case lacked material evidence, such as video cassettes and objectionable photographs, to support the blackmailing allegations.
    • ✓ There was no intention on the part of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The appellants were not present at the scene of the suicide or any proximate point in time.
    • ✓ The suicide note was produced 20 days after the death of the deceased, making it unreliable.
    • ✓ PW-7, the elder brother of the deceased, did not support the prosecution’s case.
    • ✓ No money or ornaments were recovered from the accused, undermining the claim that they were blackmailing the deceased.
    • ✓ The deceased could have had other reasons for committing suicide, such as the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for misappropriation of money.
  • Arguments by the Respondent (State of Gujarat):
    • ✓ The postmortem report confirmed that the death was due to the consumption of poison.
    • ✓ The suicide note was written by the deceased, as confirmed by the handwriting expert.
    • ✓ The appellants extracted money from the deceased by blackmailing him with compromising photographs.
    • ✓ All oral and documentary evidence proved the charge against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the appellants’ emphasis on the lack of direct and proximate causation between their alleged actions and the deceased’s suicide, challenging the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence and delayed presentation of the suicide note.

Main Submission Sub-Submissions by Appellants Sub-Submissions by Respondent
Lack of Evidence ✓ No video cassettes or objectionable photographs presented.
✓ No recovery of money or ornaments. 		✓ Postmortem report confirms death by poisoning.
✓ Suicide note confirms blackmailing.
Absence of Instigation ✓ No intention to aid, instigate, or abet suicide.
✓ Appellants not present at the scene. 		✓ Blackmailing led to the deceased being unable to withstand the situation.
Reliability of Suicide Note ✓ Suicide note produced 20 days after death.
✓ PW-7 did not support the prosecution’s case. 		✓ Handwriting expert confirmed the suicide note was written by the deceased.
Alternative Reasons for Suicide ✓ Disciplinary proceedings for misappropriation. ✓ (No counter-argument provided in the document)

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the appellants abetted the commission of suicide by Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar, thereby committing an offense punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
Whether the appellants abetted the commission of suicide by Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar, thereby committing an offense punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code? No The Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, a lack of proximate cause between the alleged blackmail and the suicide, and doubts about the authenticity and reliability of the suicide note.

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several legal provisions and precedents to adjudicate the case. These authorities helped to clarify the requirements for establishing abetment to suicide and the importance of evidence in such cases.

  • Legal Provisions:
    • ✓ Section 306 IPC: Defines the punishment for abetment of suicide.
    • ✓ Section 107 IPC: Defines abetment, including instigation, conspiracy, and intentional aid.
    • ✓ Section 114 IPC: Clarifies the liability of an abettor who is present when the offense is committed.
  • Case Laws:
    • ✓ Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Supreme Court of India: Defined “instigate” as to goad, urge, provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act.
    • ✓ Chitresh Kumar Chopra versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, Supreme Court of India: Elaborated on the constituents of “abetment,” emphasizing the need for intention to provoke, urge, or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.
    • ✓ Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, Supreme Court of India: Held that there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
    • ✓ Ude Singh versus State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, Supreme Court of India: Expressed a similar view, requiring positive action proximate to the time of occurrence.
    • ✓ Rajesh versus State of Haryana, (2020) 15 SCC 359, Supreme Court of India: Held that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence.
    • ✓ Amudha versus State, 2024 INSC 244, Supreme Court of India: Stated that the act attributed should be proximate to the time of suicide and leave the deceased with no alternative.
    • ✓ Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi versus State of Karnataka, (2024) SCC Online SC 3541, Supreme Court of India: Observed that suicide depends on the mental state of the victim, and guilty intention on the part of the accused must be established.
    • ✓ Prakash versus State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 1020, Supreme Court of India: Summed up the legal position, emphasizing the need for direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement in close proximity to the commission of suicide.
    • ✓ Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, Supreme Court of India: Noted that even a time gap of 48 hours between abusive language and suicide would not amount to a proximate act.
    • ✓ Kumar @ Shiva Kumar versus State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 156, Supreme Court of India: Opined that recovery of the trace of poison is crucial in cases of death due to consumption or administering of poison.
    • ✓ Shashi Kumar Banerjee versus Subodh Kumar Banerjee (since deceased), AIR 1964 SC 529, Supreme Court of India: Observed that expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and can rarely take the place of substantive evidence.
    • ✓ Murari Lal versus State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704, Supreme Court of India: Opined that the approach of the court should be one of caution with regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of hand -writing.
    • ✓ Keshav Dutt versus State of Haryana, (2010) 9 SCC 286, Supreme Court of India: Took the view that when the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the accused to cross -examine the said expert.
Authority How Considered by the Court
Section 306 IPC Explained the provision related to the punishment for abetment of suicide.
Section 107 IPC Defined the term “abetment” and its various components, such as instigation, conspiracy, and intentional aid.
Section 114 IPC Clarified the liability of an abettor who is present when the offense is committed
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 Defined “instigate” as to goad, urge, provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act.
Chitresh Kumar Chopra versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 Elaborated on the constituents of “abetment,” emphasizing the need for intention to provoke, urge, or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 Held that there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Ude Singh versus State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 Expressed a similar view, requiring positive action proximate to the time of occurrence.
Rajesh versus State of Haryana, (2020) 15 SCC 359 Held that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence.
Amudha versus State, 2024 INSC 244 Stated that the act attributed should be proximate to the time of suicide and leave the deceased with no alternative.
Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi versus State of Karnataka, (2024) SCC Online SC 3541 Observed that suicide depends on the mental state of the victim, and guilty intention on the part of the accused must be established.
Prakash versus State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 1020 Summed up the legal position, emphasizing the need for direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement in close proximity to the commission of suicide.
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 Noted that even a time gap of 48 hours between abusive language and suicide would not amount to a proximate act.
Kumar @ Shiva Kumar versus State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 156 Opined that recovery of the trace of poison is crucial in cases of death due to consumption or administering of poison.
Shashi Kumar Banerjee versus Subodh Kumar Banerjee (since deceased), AIR 1964 SC 529 Observed that expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and can rarely take the place of substantive evidence.
Murari Lal versus State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704 Opined that the approach of the court should be one of caution with regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of hand -writing.
Keshav Dutt versus State of Haryana, (2010) 9 SCC 286 Took the view that when the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the accused to cross -examine the said expert.

Judgment

Submission by Parties How Treated by the Court
Appellants’ submission that the prosecution’s case lacked material evidence The Court agreed, noting the absence of video cassettes, objectionable photographs, and recovered money or ornaments.
Appellants’ submission that there was no intention to instigate suicide The Court concurred, stating that the appellants were not present at the scene and there was no proximate act of instigation.
Appellants’ challenge to the reliability of the suicide note The Court noted the delayed production of the suicide note and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, casting doubt on its credibility.
Appellants’ argument that there were alternative reasons for suicide The Court acknowledged the possibility of other factors, such as disciplinary proceedings, contributing to the deceased’s decision.
Respondent’s submission that the postmortem report confirmed death by poisoning The Court acknowledged the report but noted the lack of recovery of any trace of poison at the scene and the absence of any material as to where the deceased procured the poison.
Respondent’s submission that the suicide note confirmed blackmailing The Court found the circumstances under which the suicide note surfaced to be suspicious and noted that even if genuine, there was no proximate act of incitement.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • ✓ Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [CITATION]: The Court used this case to define “instigate” and emphasized that the accused’s actions must goad, urge, provoke, incite, or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.
  • ✓ Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to highlight that “abetment” requires the intention to provoke, urge, or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.
  • ✓ Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to underscore that there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
  • ✓ Ude Singh v. State of Haryana [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to support the requirement of a positive action proximate to the time of occurrence to establish abetment.
  • ✓ Rajesh v. State of Haryana [CITATION]: The Court referenced this case to reiterate that a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained solely on allegations of harassment without a proximate act.
  • ✓ Amudha v. State [CITATION]: The Court used this case to emphasize that the attributed act should be proximate to the time of suicide and leave the deceased with no alternative.
  • ✓ Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to highlight that suicide depends on the mental state of the victim, and a guilty intention on the part of the accused must be established.
  • ✓ Prakash v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to summarize the legal position, emphasizing the need for direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement in close proximity to the commission of suicide.
  • ✓ Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [CITATION]: The Court noted that even a time gap of 48 hours between abusive language and suicide would not amount to a proximate act.
  • ✓ Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]: The Court opined that recovery of the trace of poison is crucial in cases of death due to consumption or administering of poison.
  • ✓ Shashi Kumar Banerjee versus Subodh Kumar Banerjee (since deceased) [CITATION]: The Court observed that expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and can rarely take the place of substantive evidence.
  • ✓ Murari Lal versus State of M.P. [CITATION]: The Court opined that the approach of the court should be one of caution with regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of hand -writing.
  • ✓ Keshav Dutt versus State of Haryana [CITATION]: The Court took the view that when the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the accused to cross -examine the said expert.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction was primarily influenced by several key factors. The Court emphasized the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, the lack of a proximate link between the alleged actions of the accused and the suicide, and the questionable reliability of the suicide note. The Court also considered the absence of material evidence, such as the recovery of money or ornaments, and the possibility of alternative reasons for the deceased’s suicide.

Factor Percentage
Inconsistencies in Prosecution Evidence 30%
Lack of Proximate Cause 35%
Questionable Reliability of Suicide Note 20%
Absence of Material Evidence 10%
Possibility of Alternative Reasons 5%

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects, such as the inconsistencies in evidence and the absence of material proof, accounted for a significant portion of the Court’s reasoning. The legal considerations, including the interpretation of Section 306 IPC and the requirement of proximate cause, also played a crucial role.

Category Percentage
Consideration of Factual Aspects of the Case 60%
Consideration of Legal Aspects 40%

Logical Reasoning

For the issue of whether the appellants abetted the commission of suicide, the court’s logical reasoning can be summarized as follows:

Allegation: Appellants abetted suicide through blackmail
Question: Was there sufficient evidence of instigation or intentional aid?
Evidence Analysis: Inconsistencies, delayed suicide note, no material evidence
Legal Principle: Abetment requires proximate cause and clear mens rea
Conclusion: Insufficient evidence of proximate cause or mens rea
Final Decision: Conviction set aside

Conclusion

In Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellants under Section 306 IPC, emphasizing the critical requirement of establishing a proximate cause between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of rigorous evidence and a clear demonstration of intent in cases of abetment to suicide. The judgment serves as a reminder that mere allegations of harassment or blackmail are insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC, unless there is concrete evidence of instigation or intentional aid that directly led the deceased to take their own life.

The court has re-emphasized the principle that for an act to constitute abetment, it must be proximate to the act of suicide and must leave the deceased with no other option but to end their life. The prosecution must establish that the accused had the mens rea to push the deceased to commit suicide, and this cannot be inferred merely from harassment or blackmail without any direct or indirect act of incitement.

Source: Patel Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat