JAYEDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH CHAVDA & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

                 [2024] 12 S.C.R. 439 : 2024 INSC 960

              Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors.
                                v.
                         State of Gujarat
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 5175 of 2024)
                               10 December 2024
            [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the High
       Court refusing to discharge the appellants-accused from offences
       punishable u/s.306, 498A and 114 of IPC.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge
       of accused – Propriety – FIR by the girl’s father against
       the appellants-husband and in-laws for offences u/ss.306,
       498A, 114 IPC alleging that the girl committed suicide after
       12 years of marriage due to the physical and mental harassment
       meted out by the husband which included the husband selling
       her ornaments, given to her as streedhan and harassed her,
       whenever she demanded them back – Application seeking
       discharge u/s.227 by the appellant on the ground that since
       the incident took place twelve months ago, the offence
       u/ss.306, 498A, 114 IPC not made out against them – Discharge
       application dismissed holding it did not seem just and proper
       to discharge or acquit any accused person without recording
       evidence on all the facts alleged – Revision Petition also
       dismissed holding that the appellants failed to bring any
       material on record to prove that a prima facie case is not made
       out to frame charges against them – Correctness:
       Held: From a perusal of the statement by the informant and
       other witnesses, FIR, findings of the Investigating Officer in the
       chargesheet as well as the statements of the deceased’s cousins
       recorded during investigation prima facie indicate that the deceased
       was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by her husband
       and in-laws – Also the specific instance related to the alleged selling
       of the gold ornaments and subsequent cruelty upon the demand


* Author
440                                                            [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       for return made by deceased – Preliminary analysis points towards
       the probable commission of the offence of cruelty as provided
       u/s. 498-A IPC – Thus, the appellants cannot be discharged for
       offence u/s. 498-A IPC – As regards, offence u/s. 306 IPC, no
       proximate link between the alleged facts, instances of harassment
       and her subsequent death by hanging – Alleged incident of selling
       of gold ornaments and subsequent physical and mental harassment,
       as alleged, occurred almost a year before the FIR was registered
       at the instance of the father of the deceased – Even if true, do not
       reflect any intention to instigate, incite or provoke the deceased to
       commit suicide – Even the statements of the deceased’s cousins
       only mention instances which occurred a year prior to the death of
       the deceased – Mere harassment and such issues between the wife
       and her husband along with the in-laws do not appear to create a
       scenario where she was left with no option other than to end her
       life – Thus, prima facie, it appears that the appellants did not have
       the requisite mens rea and neither did they commit any positive
       or direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the commission of
       suicide by the deceased – Ingredients for the offence u/s. 306 IPC
       not made out, thus, cannot be charged u/s. 306 IPC – Appellants
       discharged from the charges u/s. 306 IPC, however the charge
       u/s. 498A IPC upheld – Penal Code, 1860. [Paras 14, 15, 26-28]

       Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Necessary
       ingredients – Explanation:
       Held: For a conviction u/s. 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence
       of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide – Cause
       of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex
       attributes of human behavior and reactions, requiring the Court
       to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused’s role
       in instigating the act – Mere allegations of harassment are not
       enough unless the accused’s actions were so compelling that the
       victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life – Such
       actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide – Court
       examines whether the accused’s conduct, including provoking,
       urging, or tarnishing the victim’s self-esteem, created an unbearable
       situation – If the accused's actions were intended only to harass
       or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment
       or investigation – Each case demands a careful evaluation of
       facts, considering the accused’s intent and its impact on the
       victim. [Para 24]
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                         441

      Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


                             Case Law Cited
     U. Suvetha v. State [2009] 7 SCR 902 : (2009) 6 SCC 757; State
     of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao [2008] 14 SCR 1170 : (2008) 15
     SCC 582; S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [2010] 9 SCR
     1111 : (2010) 12 SCC 190; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
     [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618; M. Mohan v. State
     [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC 626; Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu
     v. State of West Bengal [2009] 15 SCR 836 : (2010) 1 SCC 707;
     Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka [2023] 14 SCR 787 : (2007) SCC
     OnLine Kar 824; Ude Singh v. State of Haryana [2019] 9 SCR
     703 : (2019) 17 SCC 301 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                            List of Keywords
     Discharge of accused; Suicide after 12 years of marriage;
     Physical and mental harassment; Streedhan; Application seeking
     discharge u/s.227 CrPC; Offence of cruelty as provided u/s.498-A
     IPC; Offence u/s.306 IPC; Proximate link between the instances
     of harassment and subsequent death by hanging; Selling of gold
     ornaments; Mere harassment; Requisite mens rea; Positive or direct
     act or omission to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide;
     Abetment of suicide; Clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of
     incitement to commit suicide.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     5175 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2024 of the High Court
     of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRLRA No. 536 of 2024

                        Appearances for Parties
     Tejas Barot, Sr. Adv., Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, Ms. Rhea
     Chokshi, Aditya Tripathi, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Ms. Neha Singh,
     Advs. for the Respondent.
442                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present criminal appeal arises from an order of the Gujarat High
       Court, dated 09.05.2024, whereby the Court rejected the Criminal
       Revision Application No. 536 of 2024 filed by the appellants herein
       and refused to discharge the appellants – accused from offences
       punishable under sections 306, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal
       Code, 1860.1
3.     FIR No. 11206038210259 of 2021 dated 18.04.2021 was registered
       at the instance of the deceased’s father against the appellants herein
       for offences under sections 306, 498A, 114 of the IPC. It was alleged
       that the appellant no.1 was married to the deceased – wife in the
       year 2009. The deceased – wife was residing in the matrimonial
       house with her in-laws, that is, appellant nos. 2 and 3. For the first
       five years of the marriage, no child was born to the couple. The
       deceased – wife was subjected to physical and mental harassment
       owing to this and thus returned to her parental home. When she
       returned to her matrimonial home on being convinced by her parents,
       a son was born to the deceased in the next few years. Around twelve
       months before the alleged incident, the deceased had informed
       her father – the informant that the appellant – accused had sold
       her ornaments, given to her as streedhan during her marriage, and
       whenever she demanded return of the same, she was physically and
       mentally harassed. On 18.04.2021, the informant received information
       that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. It is
       alleged that it was due to the physical and mental harassment meted
       out by the appellant – accused that the deceased was compelled
       to commit suicide.
4.     Appellants had earlier sought quashing of the FIR, which petition was
       dismissed by the High Court and even the Special Leave Petition
       before this Court against the dismissal order of the High Court
       was dismissed as withdrawn. The appellants thereafter preferred


1    IPC
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                         443

       Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


      an application seeking discharge under Section 227 of the Code
      of Criminal Procedure, 19732 on the ground that, prima facie, the
      ingredients for the offence of abetment as provided under Section 107
      of IPC are not made out against them. As per the complaint the
      incident had taken place twelve months ago. In the circumstances
      prima facie instigation is not proved, therefore the offence as per
      sections 306, 498A, 114 of the IPC are not made out against them.
      The Sessions Court, vide order dated 28.02.2024, dismissed the
      discharge application observing that in the circumstances of the
      case, it did not seem just and proper to discharge or acquit any
      accused person without recording evidence on all the facts alleged.
5.    Appellants challenged the above order before the High Court in a
      Criminal Revision Petition, wherein the High Court in the impugned
      order has dismissed the same and held that the appellants failed to
      bring any material on record to prove that a prima facie case is not
      made out to frame charges against them. The Court, while dismissing
      the revision petition, observed that at the stage of charge framing, the
      Court’s role is preliminary and limited to determining whether a prima
      facie case exists. The test applied is whether the materials presented
      by the prosecution, taken at its face value, disclose ingredients of the
      alleged offence. The Court is not required to evaluate the probative
      value of the evidence or assess its sufficiency for conviction. Instead,
      it only has to consider whether there is a strong suspicion that the
      accused might have committed the offence. This suspicion must be
      based on credible material and not on arbitrary conclusions. In the
      present case, witness statements revealed that the deceased had
      faced consistent physical and mental harassment by the accused.
      The harassment included selling the deceased’s gold ornaments,
      which was her streedhan, and torturing her when she demanded
      their return. Witnesses also indicated that the harassment intensified
      before her suicide, particularly during a recent family event, and
      directly contributed to her decision to end her life. These statements
      provided sufficient material to establish strong suspicion against
      the accused. The Court further noted that the appellants failed to
      present any material demonstrating that the allegations were patently
      absurd or inherently improbable. As such, the High Court upheld the
      decision of the Sessions Court to frame charges under Sections 306


2    CrPC
444                                                          [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       and 498A of the IPC. The revision petition was dismissed, with the
       High Court finding it devoid of merit and an attempt to delay the trial.
6.     Aggrieved by this judgment, the appellants are before us on several
       grounds, inter alia, that the allegations against them are completely
       baseless and they have been roped in on concocted facts and
       there is nothing on record to show how the appellants were even
       remotely involved in abetting the suicide of the deceased. Further,
       the appellants also claimed that allegations made against them in
       the FIR as well as statements brought on the record are vague and
       general, and do not constitute an offence either under section 306
       or section 498A, IPC. And thus, there is no prima facie case against
       them to condemn them to face trial as the key ingredient of mens
       rea required to make out a case under section 306, IPC is absolutely
       lacking. That apart, from the alleged selling of the ornaments there
       was no bone of contention between the deceased and the appellants.
       Having been together with appellant no. l for a duration of almost
       twelve years there has been no other complaint filed against any
       of the appellants under section 498A, IPC nor is the claim made by
       the informant that there was a constant demand for dowry or that
       the appellant kept the deceased badly or treated her badly. The only
       instance, as alleged in the FIR, of harassment was allegedly met out
       to the deceased when she inquired about getting back the jewellery
       that was allegedly sold off by appellant no.1 and his family members
       which, admittedly, as per the order of the Trial Court, occurred a year
       prior to death of the deceased.
7.     We have heard the learned counsels for parties and have perused
       the material on record. We find that the following issues arise for
       our consideration:
       1.   Whether a prima facie case under Section 498A, IPC is made
            out against the appellant – accused?
       2.   Whether a prima facie case under Section 306, IPC is made
            out against the appellant – accused?
       3.   Whether the appellant – accused can be discharged for the
            offences under sections 306 and 498A, IPC?
8.     Section 498A, IPC provides for punishment to the husband or to
       relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting the woman to cruelty.
       ‘Cruelty’ under this provision has been explained to mean –
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        445

        Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


      a.     any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
             drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
             danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of
             the woman; or
      b.     harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
             view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
             unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
             account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
             such demand.
9.    This Court in the case of U. Suvetha v. State,3 laid down the following
      ingredients to constitute the offence under section 498-A, IPC:
      i.     The woman must be married;
      ii.    She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
      iii.   Such cruelty or harassment must have been done either by
             husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.
10. This Court has also held in the judgment in the case of State of A.P.
    v. M. Madhusudhan Rao,4 that not every kind of harassment would
    amount to ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of the provision, to constitute
    the offence punishable therein. Every case has to be analysed on
    its individual facts to assess whether the act of the accused persons
    constitutes cruelty. Further, cruelty can either be mental or physical,
    and it is to be seen on the facts of each case.
11. From the above understanding of the provision, it is evident that,
    ‘cruelty’ simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence, rather it
    must be done either with the intention to cause grave injury or to
    drive her to commit suicide or with intention to coercing her or her
    relatives to meet unlawful demands.
12. In the present case, the deceased has committed suicide after twelve
    years of marriage. In these twelve years, the informant and other
    witnesses on record have stated that the deceased had informed
    them on multiple occasions that she was subjected to physical and
    mental harassment by the appellants herein. It has also been stated



3    [2009] 7 SCR 902 : (2009) 6 SCC 757
4    [2008] 14 SCR 1170 : (2008) 15 SCC 582
446                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       that once before she had returned to her parental home owing
       to the alleged cruelty and was later sent back to her matrimonial
       house. Deceased’s father, who is the informant, has also stated that
       around twelve months prior to her death, the appellants had sold the
       deceased’s streedhan and had tortured her when she demanded
       them back. The same has also been stated by her relatives who
       have been examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation.
13. The appellants’ argument that the deceased had not made a single
    complaint for cruelty or harassment against the appellants in the
    twelve years of marriage cannot be sustained. Merely because she
    did not file any complaint for twelve years does not guarantee that
    there was no instance of cruelty or harassment.
14. Further, the argument that ingredients of section 498A, IPC are not
    made as the allegations made therein are general and vague, also
    does not strengthen the case of the appellants as the allegations,
    with specific, instances stated by the informant and other witnesses
    prima facie constitute a case for offence under section 498-A, IPC.
    From a perusal of the FIR, findings of the Investigating Officer in the
    chargesheet as well as the statements of the deceased’s cousins
    recorded during investigation prima facie indicate that the deceased
    was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by her husband
    and the in-laws. There is also the specific instance related to the
    alleged selling of the gold ornaments and subsequent cruelty upon
    the demand for return made by the deceased. A preliminary analysis,
    as required during the stage of charge-framing, points towards the
    probable commission of the offence of cruelty as provided under
    section 498-A, IPC.
15. Hence, the appellants cannot be discharged for offence under
    section 498-A, IPC and should be charged with and tried for the same.
16. Section 306 of the IPC provides for punishment for the offence of
    abetment of suicide. It has to be read with Section 107 of the IPC
    which defines the act of ‘abetment’. The provisions read as follows:
            “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.”
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                          447

      Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


          “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 facilitate
          the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the act of suicide
    by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the
    prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act
    of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the
    three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions
    include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit
    suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried
    out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to
    the person taking his/her own life.
18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established
    legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to
    abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient
    to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must
    demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the
    deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot
    simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly
    discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing
    abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity
448                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the
       act of suicide. The same position was laid down by this Court in S.S.
       Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan,5 wherein it was observed that:
            “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating
            a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
            thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused
            to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot
            be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio
            of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that
            in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC there
            has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
            requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased
            to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have
            been intended to push the deceased into such a position
            that he committed suicide.”
19. To bring a conviction under section 306, IPC it is necessary to
    establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to
    commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation of
    circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another
    person to commit suicide. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar
    v. State of Chhattisgarh,6 defined the word “instigate” as under:
            “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
            or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement
            of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words
            must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
            must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
            consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
            consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
            present one is not a case where the accused had by his
            acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
            created such circumstances that the deceased was left with
            no other option except to commit suicide in which case an
            instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the
            fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences
            to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”


5   [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : (2010) 12 SCC 190
6   [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       449

      Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


20. The 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.
21. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative that
    the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to
    commit suicide. Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the Court
    must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the
    case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary
    to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the
    victim left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases
    of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of
    either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide.
    Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt.
    For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the
    accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled
    or drove the victim to commit suicide.
22. It is essential to establish that the death was a result of suicide and
    that the accused actively abetted its commission. This can involve
    instigating the victim or engaging in specific actions that facilitated
    the act. The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused
    played a definitive role in the abetment. Without clear evidence of an
    active role in provoking or assisting the suicide, a conviction under
    Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.
23. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated through
    actions or behaviors of the accused that directly contributed to the
    victim’s decision to take their own life. Harassment, in itself, does
    not suffice unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement
    or facilitation. Furthermore, these actions must be proximate to the
    time of the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the
    accused’s behavior and the tragic outcome. It is only through the
    establishment of this direct link that a conviction under Section 306
    IPC can be justified. The prosecution bears the burden of proving this
    active involvement to hold the accused accountable for the alleged
    abetment of suicide. The same position has been laid down by this
    court in several judgments, such as:
450                                                          [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       i.     M. Mohan v. State;7
       ii.    Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal,8
       iii.   Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka.9
24. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear
    evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide.
    The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves
    complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, requiring the
    Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused’s role in
    instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough
    unless the accused’s actions were so compelling that the victim
    perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must
    also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines
    whether the accused’s conduct, including provoking, urging, or
    tarnishing the victim’s self-esteem, created an unbearable situation.
    If the accused’s actions were intended only to harass or express
    anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation.
    Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the
    accused’s intent and its impact on the victim.
25. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana,10 held that to convict
    an accused under Section 306 IPC, the intent or mental state to
    commit the specific crime must be evident when assessing culpability.
    It was observed as under:
              “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must
              be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
              commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that
              the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the
              context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
              vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes
              of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case
              of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be
              looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of
              incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of


7    [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC 626
8    [2009] 15 SCR 836 : (2010) 1 SCC 707
9    [2023] 14 SCR 787 : (2007) SCC OnLine Kar 824
10   [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC 301
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                            451

      Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat


          suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased
          by another person would not suffice unless there be such
          action on the part of the accused which compels the person
          to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to
          be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person
          has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not,
          could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances
          of each case.
          16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
          commission of suicide by another, the consideration would
          be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act
          of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the
          decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge
          forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
          persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive
          and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily
          expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to
          commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused
          guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if
          the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of
          conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased
          perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the
          case may fall within the four corners of Section 306IPC.
          If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-
          esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually
          draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be
          held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens
          rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be
          examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of
          the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such
          nature where the accused intended nothing more than
          harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may
          fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However,
          if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased
          by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was
          provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of
          suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of
          human behaviour, each case is required to be examined
          on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding
452                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


               factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the
               accused and the deceased.”
26. On a careful and close consideration of the facts and the material
    on record in the present case and in light of the law laid down by
    this Court regarding Section 306, IPC, there appears no proximate
    link between the alleged facts, instances of harassment and her
    subsequent death by hanging. The alleged incident of selling of gold
    ornaments and subsequent physical and mental harassment, as
    alleged, occurred almost a year before the FIR was registered at the
    instance of the father of the deceased. Even the statements of the
    deceased’s cousins only mention instances which occurred a year
    prior to the death of the deceased. Further, selling of gold ornaments
    and the same was followed by discord and harassment upon their
    demand, even if true, do not reflect any intention to instigate, incite
    or provoke the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment and
    such issues between the wife and her husband along with the in-laws
    do not appear to create a scenario where she was left with no option
    other than to end her life. There is, therefore, absence of mens rea
    to instigate suicide of the deceased persons. Therefore, prima facie,
    it appears that the appellants did not have the requisite mens rea
    and neither did they commit any positive or direct act or omission
    to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased.
27. Hence, the ingredients 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 thus
    deserve to be discharged of the same.
28. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed,
    they are discharged from the charges under Section 306 of the IPC,
    however the charge under Section 498A of the IPC is upheld and
    the trial under this provision shall proceed against them.
29. Pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain