Supreme Court Quashes Abetment to Suicide Charges, Orders Reinvestigation in Family Dispute: Ayyub & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 7th February, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 168

Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI; Sanjay Kumar, J.; K. V. Viswanathan, J.

When a family tragedy unfolds, how does the justice system ensure a fair and impartial investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Ayyub & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. The case involves allegations of abetment to suicide following a death that occurred amidst a suspected relationship and a prior complaint of assault. The Supreme Court, raising concerns about a one-sided investigation, quashed the abetment to suicide charges and ordered a reinvestigation to ensure a comprehensive and unbiased inquiry. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. V. Viswanathan.

Case Background

The case originates from a series of unfortunate events involving two families in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. On November 2, 2022, Ayyub, the first appellant, reported that his son, Ziaul Rahman, had been assaulted by relatives of Tanu, the second respondent’s cousin, due to suspicions about a relationship between Ziaul and Tanu. Ziaul Rahman later died from his injuries. Subsequently, on November 3, 2022, Vijay, the second respondent, filed a counter-complaint alleging that Ayyub and other appellants had abetted Tanu’s suicide by verbally harassing and humiliating her, leading her to take her own life on the same day Ziaul Rahman died.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Following the registration of the FIR, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Judicial Magistrate of Saharanpur took cognizance of the offense and issued summons to the appellants. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad seeking to quash the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings. The High Court dismissed their application, stating that there was a proximate link between the act of the accused and the suicide of Tanu, who was deemed to be hypersensitive and depressed. Subsequently, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with abetment of suicide. It states:

“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.”

The court also refers to Section 107 IPC, which defines abetment:

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.

For Section 306 IPC to apply, there must be clear evidence of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, meaning there must be proof that the accused either instigated, conspired, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the charge-sheet lacked the necessary ingredients to constitute an offense under Section 306 IPC. They contended that the alleged verbal utterances were not of such a nature as to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
• They emphasized the prior FIR lodged by the first appellant against the family of the deceased, suggesting a motive for the counter-complaint.
• The appellants questioned the timing and manner of the investigation, highlighting the delayed recording of statements and the one-sided nature of the police inquiry.

Arguments by the Respondents:

• The respondents argued that there was a proximate link between the actions of the accused and the suicide of the deceased.
• They asserted that the deceased was hypersensitive and felt humiliated due to the appellants’ actions, leading her to take her own life.
• The respondents relied on the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to support their allegations.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the charge-sheet filed by the police and the order of cognizance were justified in proceeding against the appellants under Section 306 IPC.
2. Whether the ingredients required to make out a case under Section 306 IPC were present in the charge-sheet or borne out from the material on record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438): This case was cited to emphasize that casual remarks made in the heat of the moment do not necessarily reflect the intention to instigate suicide.
• Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628: This case was cited to highlight that specific abetment with the intention to bring about the suicide is required to establish an offense under Section 306 IPC.
• Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707: This case was cited to reiterate that there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide.
• M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626: This case was cited to reinforce the need for proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide.
• Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618: This case was cited to emphasize the necessity of direct or indirect acts of incitement to establish abetment of suicide.
• Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76: This recent case was cited to reiterate the principles established in previous judgments regarding Section 306 IPC.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the proceedings against the appellants and ordering a reinvestigation into the death of Tanu. The Court expressed concerns about the one-sided nature of the investigation and the lack of exploration into other possible causes of Tanu’s suicide.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438): The Court used this authority to support its reasoning that the words allegedly spoken by the appellants were of a casual nature and did not reflect the required mens rea to establish abetment.
• Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC with the intention to bring about the suicide is required for attracting Section 306 IPC.
• Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707: The Court cited this authority to highlight that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide.
• M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626: The Court referred to this case to reinforce that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide.
• Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618: The Court cited this authority to emphasize that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide.
• Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76: The Court referred to this recent case to reiterate the principles established in previous judgments regarding Section 306 IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

Several factors weighed heavily on the mind of the Court. The Court was particularly concerned about the one-sided nature of the investigation, where the police appeared to have solely relied on the version of the complainant and his family members without exploring other possible angles. The Court also noted the prior FIR lodged by the first appellant against the family of the deceased, which suggested a potential motive for the counter-complaint. Additionally, the Court found that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were belated and only reinforced the suspicion of a biased investigation.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the charge-sheet filed by the police and the order of cognizance were justified in proceeding against the appellants under Section 306 IPC.

+-----------------------------------------------------+
|  Allegation of Abetment to Suicide (Section 306 IPC) |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                 ↓
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|  Review of Charge-Sheet and Available Material      |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                 ↓
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|  Absence of Ingredients for Abetment (Section 107 IPC) |
|  - No Intent to Instigate                           |
|  - No Direct or Indirect Acts of Incitement          |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                 ↓
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|  One-Sided Investigation Concerns                    |
|  - Reliance on Complainant's Version Only           |
|  - Delayed Recording of Statements                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                 ↓
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|  Prior FIR by Appellant Suggesting Motive             |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                 ↓
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|  Proceedings Cannot Be Allowed to Continue          |
|  - Charge-Sheet Quashed                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                 ↓
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|  Order for Reinvestigation                           |
|  - Comprehensive and Impartial Inquiry Required     |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                

Key Takeaways

• In cases of alleged abetment to suicide, the investigation must be thorough, impartial, and explore all possible angles.
• The charge-sheet must contain specific evidence of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, including intent to instigate, conspire, or aid the commission of suicide.
• Courts must carefully scrutinize the evidence to ensure that the necessary ingredients for an offense under Section 306 IPC are present before proceeding with the trial.
• The judgment underscores the importance of protecting individuals from potentially biased or malicious complaints, especially in cases involving family disputes.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Director General of Police, Law and Order, State of Uttar Pradesh, is directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an officer of the level of Deputy Inspector General of Police to reinvestigate the unnatural death of Tanu.
• The SIT is authorized to treat the FIR registered in crime no. 367 of 2022 at PS Rampur Maniharan as one of unnatural death and is granted the liberty to re-register the FIR if deemed appropriate.
• The reinvestigation report shall be placed before the Court in a sealed cover within a period of two months from today.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that for an offense under Section 306 IPC to be made out, there must be specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment. The judgment reinforces the established legal position that mere utterances or harassment are not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide unless they are of such a nature as to leave the deceased with no other alternative but to end their life. The judgment also highlights the importance of an impartial and thorough investigation in such cases.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court quashed the charges against the appellants under Section 306 IPC due to concerns over a one-sided investigation and the lack of evidence to support the allegations of abetment to suicide. The Court ordered a reinvestigation by a Special Investigation Team to ensure a comprehensive and impartial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Tanu.

Category

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

FAQ

1. What does this judgment mean for someone accused of abetment to suicide?

   This judgment emphasizes that accusations of abetment to suicide require a high standard of proof. The prosecution must demonstrate a clear intent to instigate, conspire, or aid in the commission of suicide. Casual remarks or general harassment are not sufficient unless they directly lead the person to take their own life.

2. What kind of evidence is needed to prove abetment to suicide?

   Evidence must show direct or indirect acts of incitement. This can include evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid that directly led the deceased to commit suicide. The court will look for a clear link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s decision to end their life.

3. What happens if the investigation is found to be biased?

   If an investigation is found to be biased or one-sided, the court may order a reinvestigation by an independent team. This ensures that all angles are explored and that the accused receives a fair trial.

4. What is Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code?

   Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code deals with abetment of suicide. It states that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

5. What is Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code?

   Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment. A person abets the doing of a thing when they instigate any person to do that thing, engage in a conspiracy for doing that thing, or intentionally aid the doing of that thing.