Supreme Court Quashes Abetment Charges Against Mother in Suicide Case: Laxmi Das vs. State of West Bengal (21 January 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 86

Judges: B. V. Nagarathna, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Can a parent’s disapproval of a relationship and subsequent harsh words be considered as instigation to commit suicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a mother accused of abetting her son’s girlfriend’s suicide. The court examined whether the mother’s actions and statements met the legal threshold for abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, clarifies the boundaries of abetment in suicide cases, particularly concerning family dynamics and verbal exchanges. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Souma Pal, who was found dead near a railway track on 3rd July 2008. She was allegedly in a relationship with Babu Das. The appellant, Laxmi Das, is Babu Das’s mother. Dilip Das and Subrata Das are Babu Das’s father and elder brother, respectively. Initially, all four were charged with abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The deceased’s uncle filed a First Information Report (FIR) on 6th July 2008, alleging that the accused had abetted Souma’s suicide. The complainant stated that the deceased’s family was against her relationship with Babu Das and had asked the accused to help end it. However, the accused allegedly encouraged the relationship and did not cooperate in finding the deceased when she went missing. The investigation revealed that the deceased’s parents were against the relationship and tried to end it, while the accused persons, including the appellant, encouraged it. The post-mortem report indicated that the death was caused by injuries sustained from jumping in front of a train.

Witness statements indicated that there were altercations between the deceased and Babu Das before the incident, with Babu Das refusing to marry her. The appellant, Laxmi Das, allegedly disapproved of the relationship and insulted the deceased.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

After the chargesheet was filed, the accused applied for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Trial Court. On 22nd March 2012, the Trial Court rejected the application. Aggrieved, the appellant, along with Dilip Das and Subrata Das, filed a revisional and quashing application before the High Court at Calcutta. The High Court dismissed the application of the appellant, refusing to entertain the revision petition and quashing application against her. However, the High Court allowed the quashing application of Dilip Das and Subrata Das, stating there were no specific allegations against them in the evidence. The High Court noted that witness Rejina Khatoon stated that the deceased had told her that when she said she could not survive without Babu, Babu and his mother, the appellant, told her that she need not be alive and might die. Based on this, the High Court found prima facie material against the appellant.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are Section 306 and Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Section 306 of the IPC deals with abetment of suicide and states:

“306. Abetment of suicide. – 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.”

Section 107 of the IPC defines ‘abetment’:

“107. Abetment of a thing. – A person abets the doing of a thing, who — First. —Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. —Engages with one or more other person or persons 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 Thirdly. —Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1. —A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2. —Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

The Supreme Court has emphasized that for an offense under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a direct or indirect instigation, in close proximity to the commission of suicide, with a clear mens rea (guilty mind) to abet the commission of suicide.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that she did not commit any act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
• Even if the allegations of her disapproving of the marriage are true, it does not constitute an offense under Section 306 of the IPC.
• All allegations against her are frivolous, and she had no role in the suicide.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State and the complainant argued that there is a case against the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC based on the evidence on record.
• The High Court rightly dismissed the petition concerning the appellant.

The core of the arguments revolved around whether the appellant’s disapproval of the relationship and alleged harsh words constituted “instigation” under Section 107 of the IPC, thereby making her liable for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the acts of the Appellant constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following cases and legal provisions:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701]: The Court relied on this case to highlight that abetment requires active encouragement, conspiracy, or intentional aid.
• Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2024 INSC 1020]: The Court used this case to emphasize that for a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a direct or indirect act contributing to the suicide.
• Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618]: This case was cited to define “instigation,” noting that it must involve goading, urging, or provoking an act with a reasonable certainty of the consequence.
• Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2017) 7 SCC 780]: The Court referred to this case to clarify that mere harassment without positive action close to the time of the suicide is not sufficient for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of direct or proximate connection between the appellant’s actions and the deceased’s suicide. The court emphasized that mere disapproval of a relationship, even if accompanied by harsh words, does not constitute abetment unless there is a positive act that pushes the victim to the edge. The court’s reasoning focused on the necessity of a clear mens rea and a direct link between the accused’s actions and the suicide.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them, finding that the appellant’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for abetment. The court emphasized that a mere remark, even if harsh, does not amount to instigation unless it creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge. The court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the facts, the legal provisions, and the judicial precedents.

The court stated:

• “Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet and the witness statements, are taken to be correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the Appellant.”
• “We find that the acts of the Appellant are too remote and indirect to constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC.”
• “There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• Mere disapproval of a relationship, even with harsh words, does not constitute abetment of suicide.
• There must be a direct or indirect act of instigation, with a clear mens rea, in close proximity to the suicide.
• A positive act that creates an environment where the victim is pushed to the edge is necessary to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC.
• This judgment clarifies the boundaries of abetment in suicide cases, protecting individuals from being charged based on remote or indirect actions.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order to the extent that it upheld the charges against the appellant, Laxmi Das. The proceedings in SC Case No. 5(8)10 of 2011 pending before the Additional District Judge, Sealdah, were quashed concerning Laxmi Das only. The Trial Court was allowed to proceed against the other accused, Babu Das, in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a direct link between the actions of the accused and the suicide. Mere disapproval or harsh words, without a positive act that creates an environment where the victim is pushed to the edge, do not constitute abetment. This judgment reinforces the principle that abetment requires a clear mens rea and a proximate connection between the accused’s actions and the suicide, thus clarifying the legal position on abetment of suicide.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Laxmi Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. quashed the charges against the appellant, Laxmi Das, for abetment of suicide. The court held that her actions were too remote and indirect to constitute abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. This ruling emphasizes the necessity of a direct link, a clear mens rea, and a positive act that pushes the victim to the edge for a charge of abetment of suicide to be sustained. The judgment provides clarity on the legal boundaries of abetment in suicide cases, particularly concerning family dynamics and verbal exchanges.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Abetment of Suicide
• Criminal Law
• Supreme Court Judgments

FAQ

Q: What is abetment of suicide?

A: Abetment of suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, refers to intentionally encouraging or assisting someone to commit suicide. It includes instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding the act.

Q: Does disapproving of a relationship constitute abetment of suicide?

A: No, mere disapproval of a relationship, even if expressed harshly, does not constitute abetment of suicide. There must be a direct or indirect act of instigation, with a clear intention to abet, and the act must be in close proximity to the suicide.

Q: What kind of actions can be considered as abetment of suicide?

A: Actions that can be considered abetment of suicide include direct instigation, engaging in a conspiracy to encourage suicide, or intentionally aiding the act. There must be a positive action that creates an environment where the victim is pushed to the edge.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court quashed the charges against the mother, Laxmi Das, holding that her actions were too remote and indirect to constitute abetment of suicide. The court emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment clarifies the legal boundaries of abetment in suicide cases, protecting individuals from being charged based on remote or indirect actions. It reinforces the principle that abetment requires a clear mens rea and a proximate connection between the accused’s actions and the suicide.