PRAKASH AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                  [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1160 : 2024 INSC 1020

                           Prakash and Others
                                   v.
                  The State of Maharashtra and Another
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 5543 of 2024)
                               20 December 2024
                 [B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
          Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting
          the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was
          a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the
          mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month
          between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the commission
          of suicide.

                                    Headnotes†
          Penal Code – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Disputes
          between the victim, and her husband-appellant no.1 and
          in-laws – Victim tortured mentally and physically over
          demand of money at her matrimonial house – Victim started
          residing separately, at her paternal house with her child –
          Subsequently criminal case against the husband and in-laws
          under the 2005 Act – During pendency, mahalokadalat held
          during which appellants allegedly refused to cohabitate with
          the victim or accept her or her child or settle the proceedings
          initiated by victim – Month later, victim committed suicide –
          Accidental Death Report by brother of the deceased stating
          that his sister committed suicide by hanging herself – Five
          days later, complaint by the mother of deceased against the
          appellants – On basis thereof, FIR registered u/ss.306 and
          34 against the husband and in-laws, and chargesheet filed –
          Application seeking discharge from case by the appellants –
          Rejected by the trial court – Said order upheld by the High
          Court – Correctness:
          Held: There must be a close proximity between the positive act of
          instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide
          by the victim – Close proximity should be such as to create a

*Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                            1161

                         Prakash and Others v.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Another

     clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide –
     Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to
     abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such
     a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit
     suicide – On facts, clear gap of over a month between the incident
     at the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide – Gap of
     over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the
     proximate link between the two acts, and render the instigation or
     incitement by the appellants, nugatory – Courts below erroneously
     accepted the prosecution story that the act of suicide by the
     deceased was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants
     at the mahalokadalat – In the Accidental Death Report lodged on
     the day of the incident, no mention about any involvement of the
     appellants in the suicidal death of the deceased and no mention
     about the incident that had occurred at the mahalokadalat – These
     facts alleged for the first time in the FIR lodged five days after
     the incident – Reasoning given by the High Court for refusal to
     discharge the appellants completely perfunctory – Prosecution
     failed to prima facie establish that the appellants had any intention
     to instigate or aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide – No
     doubt, a young woman of 25 years lost her life in an unfortunate
     incident, however, in the absence of sufficient material to show that
     the appellants had intended by their words to push the deceased
     to commit suicide, continuation of criminal proceedings would
     result in an abuse of process of law – Thus, the orders passed by
     the courts below quashed and set aside – Protection of Women
     from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Code of Criminal Procedure,
     1973 – s.227. [Paras 32-38]

     Penal Code – ss.306 and 107 – Abetment of suicide –
     Interpretation of s.306 read with s.107 – Ingredients and
     principles of s.306 – Elucidated. [Paras 13-28]

                              Case Law Cited
     Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others,
     2023 INSC 1035 : (2024) 1 SCC 417 : ; Gurjit Singh v. State of
     Punjab, 2019 INSC 1281 : [2019] 14 SCR 232 : (2020) 14 SCC
     264; State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu and Others, 2019 INSC
     1164 : [2019] 13 SCR 489 : (2019) 10 SCC 188; Madan Mohan
     Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2010 INSC 521 : [2010] 10
1162                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


    SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628; Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi
    v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 INSC 534 : [2008] 6 SCR 1116 :
    (2008) 10 SCC 394 ; Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of
    M.P., 2002 INSC 250 : [2002] 3 SCR 668 : (2002) 5 SCC 371;
    S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, 2010 INSC
    506 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : (2010) 12 SCC 190; Jayedeepsinh
    Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat, 2024 INSC
    960 : [2024] 12 SCR 439 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679; Ramesh
    Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 INSC 515 : [2001] Supp. 4
    SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618; Ude Singh and Others v. State of
    Haryana, 2019 INSC 810 : [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC
    301; Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 149 : [2024]
    2 SCR 830 : (2024) 3 SCC 573 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Penal
    Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                            List of Keywords
    Abetment of suicide; Direct or indirect acts of instigation; Clear
    nexus between suicide and instigation; Proximate to time of suicide;
    Intention to instigate suicide; Act of suicide; Direct result of the
    words uttered; Mahalokadalat; Commission of suicide; Tortured
    mentally and physically over demand of money; Application
    seeking discharge from case; Close proximity between positive
    act of instigation by accused person and commission of suicide
    by victim; Mens rea to abet commission of suicide; Sufficient time
    to dissolve nexus or proximate link between two acts; Absence
    of sufficient material; Interpretation of s.306 read with s.107 IPC;
    Ingredients and principles of s.306 IPC.

                           Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    5543 of 2024
    From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2022 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRWP No. 246 of 2021

                        Appearances for Parties
    Niteen V. Gaware, Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Vatsalya Vigya, Advs.
    for the Appellants.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        1163

                                Prakash and Others v.
                        The State of Maharashtra and Another

      Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Sourav Singh,
      Advs. for the Respondents.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                              Judgment

      B.R. Gavai, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 17th October
      2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
      Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition
      No. 246 of 2021, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the
      Writ Petition preferred by the present appellants. The Writ Petition had
      been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 24th December
      2020 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner,
      District Ahmednagar wherein the learned Assistant Sessions Judge
      had rejected the application preferred by the appellants seeking
      discharge from the charges punishable under Sections 306 and 34
      of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,1 pending against the appellants
      before the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner2 in
      Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015.
3.    The facts which lead to the present appeal are as under:-
      3.1. On 20 th March 2015, the Police Station, Ashvi, District
           Ahmednagar, received an Accidental Death Report (Khabar)
           by one Vikas Bhausaheb Sanap who stated that on the same
           day at about 10 a.m. his sister Jyoti Nagre,3 aged about 25
           years, had committed suicide by hanging herself from the iron
           pipe situated in the bathroom of her paternal house where she
           had been residing for the past two years.
      3.2. Subsequently, on 25th March 2015, Mrs. Sindhubai Bhausaheb
           Sanap (Respondent No.2), mother of the deceased, lodged a
           complaint at the said police station. According to the complaint,


1    For short, ‘the IPC’.
2    Hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’.
3    Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’.
1164                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


             the deceased had been married to Prakash, Appellant No. 1,
             on 19th November 2009, after which she had given birth to twin
             sons. After marriage, disputes arose between the deceased and
             her husband and in-laws from time to time, with the complainant
             alleging that the deceased had been mentally and physically
             tortured at her matrimonial house. However, on the intervention
             of the complainant and her family, the disputes were patched
             up and the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home.
             Soon thereafter, owing to persisting acrimony at her matrimonial
             home, the deceased and Appellant No.1 started residing
             separately, away from the matrimonial home, in Lonikand,
             Pune. It was further alleged that on 8th August 2013, Appellant
             No.1 had physically abused the deceased over a demand of
             Rs.20 lakhs for the purchase of a new plot of land. After this
             incident, the deceased came to reside at her paternal house.
             Subsequently, a criminal case being Criminal M.A. No. 175 of
             2013 came to be filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
             First Class, Sangamner against the husband and in-laws of the
             deceased under Sections 12, 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of
             Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During the pendency
             of the criminal case, a mahalokadalat was held in the court in
             Sangamner on 17th February 2015, which was attended by the
             complainant, the deceased and the present appellants, among
             others. The complainant (Respondent No.2) alleged that on the
             said day, the present appellants told the deceased that they
             were not ready to reach a compromise in the matter and further
             that she would not be allowed to go back to her matrimonial
             house. The deceased was further advised by Appellant No.1
             to re-marry as he would not accept her or her children at the
             matrimonial house. Subsequent to this incident, the deceased
             would frequently say that she would commit suicide as her life
             no longer held any meaning. Thereafter, on 20th March 2015,
             the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from an
             iron pipe with the aid of a saree.
     3.3. On the basis of the complaint, a First Information Report4 being
          Crime No.12 of 2015 was lodged under Sections 306 and 34 of
          the IPC against Prakash Pandurang Nagare (Appellant No.1),


4   For short, ‘FIR’
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       1165

                                Prakash and Others v.
                        The State of Maharashtra and Another

              Pandurang Kundlik Nagare (Appellant No.2), the father-in-law
              of the deceased, and Pradip Pandurang Nagare (Appellant
              No.3), the brother-in-law of the deceased at the aforementioned
              police station.
      3.4. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to
           be filed on 28th September 2015.
      3.5. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed an application
           under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19735
           before the trial court, praying to be discharged from the said
           case. The trial court, by its order dated 24th December 2020,
           rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that there was
           sufficient ground to proceed against the appellants.
      3.6. Being aggrieved further, the appellants preferred a Criminal Writ
           Petition before the High Court for setting aside of the aforesaid
           order of the trial court. The High Court, vide the impugned
           judgment and order, dismissed the writ petition finding it to be
           devoid of merit.
      3.7. Being aggrieved thereby, this present appeal.
4.    This Court while issuing notice on 30th January 2023 had stayed the
      criminal proceedings bearing Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 pending
      before the trial court, until further orders.
5.    We have heard Mr. Niteen V. Gaware, learned counsel appearing for
      the appellants and Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel
      and Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the respondent-State of Maharashtra.
6.    Mr. Gaware, learned counsel, submitted that there was a delay of five
      days in lodging the FIR. He submitted that although an Accidental
      Death Report (Khabar) had been filed on the day of the incident
      by the brother of the deceased, there is not a whisper about any
      harassment caused by the appellants to the deceased. It also did
      not disclose any involvement of or instigation by the appellants which
      might have led the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted
      that the FIR was an afterthought and no satisfactory explanation has
      been offered to justify the inordinate delay.


5    For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’
1166                                                         [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                                 Supreme Court Reports


7.    Mr. Gaware further submitted that it is not a case of prosecution
      that the appellants spoke in such a manner which would amount to
      abetment of suicide. He further submitted that the appellants met
      the deceased only on the day of the Mahalokadalat which was held
      on 17th February 2014 where Appellant No. 1 is alleged to have told
      her that he did not wish to cohabitate with the deceased any longer
      and he did not wish to settle the proceedings initiated by her. Merely
      because the deceased was depressed about her situation, it would
      not be enough to convict the appellants, particularly since, prima
      facie, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled.
8.    Mr. Gaware submitted that the deceased had been residing separately
      from the appellants since 8th August 2013. In the intervening period
      between the date of separation and the date of the incident, the
      appellants had interacted with the deceased only on one occasion
      that is on the date of the Mahalokadalat which was held on 17th
      February 2014. He submitted that the FIR wrongly mentions the
      date of the mahalokadalat to be 17th February 2015. It is submitted
      that the deceased committed suicide after over a year had passed.
      However, the courts below did not consider this aspect or look into
      the roznama of court proceedings which clearly showed the date on
      which the mahalokadalat had been held. Therefore, he submitted that
      in view of the time gap between the alleged meeting and the date
      of suicide, there is no immediate instigation or abetment to commit
      suicide which can be attributed to the appellants.
9.    Mr. Gaware placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the
      cases of Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and
      Others,6 Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab,7 State of West Bengal
      v. Indrajit Kundu and Others,8 Madan Mohan Singh v. State of
      Gujarat and Another,9 Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State
      of Maharashtra10 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of
      M.P.11. He submitted in view of the material placed on record and



6    2023 INSC 1035 : (2024) 1 SCC 417
7    2019 INSC 1281 : [2019] 14 SCR 232 : (2020) 14 SCC 264
8    2019 INSC 1164 : [2019] 13 SCR 489 : (2019) 10 SCC 188
9    2010 INSC 521 : [2010] 10 SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628
10   2008 INSC 534 : [2008] 6 SCR 1116 : (2008) 10 SCC 394
11   2002 INSC 250 : [2002] 3 SCR 668 : (2002) 5 SCC 371
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                         1167

                         Prakash and Others v.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Another

     the authorities cited, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the
     appellants deserve to be discharged of all charges.
10. Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel, submitted
    that no interference is warranted in the concurrent findings of the
    trial court and the High Court. He submitted that there is sufficient
    material against the appellants to proceed against them. He further
    submitted that in view of the allegations levelled against the appellants
    and the evidence collected by the investigating agency, it is not a fit
    case to allow this appeal. Mr. Dharmadhikari, therefore, prayed for
    the dismissal of this appeal.
11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the
    material placed on record.
12. The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for consideration are as
    under:
          “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.
          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
1168                                                          [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                                 Supreme Court Reports


             facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates
             the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of
    suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by
    another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306
    of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person
    has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or
    indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the
    three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted,
    time and again, and its principles are well-established. To attract
    the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof
    of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by
    the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of
    suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal
    a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put
    the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option
    but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions
    of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or
    intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring
    a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would
    require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another
    person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of
    the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a
    charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment
    also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the
    accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to
    commit suicide.
16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
    and Another,12 had an occasion to consider the scope of Section
    306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential for abetment,
    as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. It observed as follows:
             “16. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the
             Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known


12   2010 INSC 506 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : (2010) 12 SCC 190
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                            1169

                         Prakash and Others v.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Another

          and requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide”
          means “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short,
          a person committing suicide must commit it by himself,
          irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving
          his object of killing himself.
          ………..
          18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence,
          considering that the successful offender is beyond the
          reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section
          309 IPC.
          ……….
          21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed
          reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh v.
          State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
          1157] In Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995
          SCC (Cri) 1157] the allegations levelled were as under:
          (SCC p. 731, para 1)
                “1. … My mother-in-law and husband and sister-
                in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed
                me. They beat me and abused me. My husband
                Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has
                illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because
                of these reasons and being harassed I want to
                die by burning.”
          The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a
          definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of
          abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
          According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant
          under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the
          aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased
          is unsustainable in law.
          ………..
          23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 :
          1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that: (SCC
          p. 90, para 17)
1170                                                    [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


             “17. … The court should be extremely careful in
             assessing the facts and circumstances of each
             case and the evidence adduced in the trial for
             the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted
             out to the victim had in fact induced her to end
             the life by committing suicide. If it [appears] to
             the court that a victim committing suicide was
             hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord
             and differences in domestic life quite common
             to the society to which the victim belonged and
             such petulance, discord and differences were
             not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
             individual in a given society to commit suicide,
             the conscience of the court should not be
             satisfied for basing a finding that the accused
             charged of abetting the offence of suicide should
             be found guilty.”
        24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.
        of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
        367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment.
        The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words
        “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there
        should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the
        doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability
        pattern is different from the other. Each person has his
        own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is
        impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing
        with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the
        basis of its own facts and circumstances.
        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 this Court is clear that in order to
        convict a person under Section 306 IPC 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
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                          1171

                              Prakash and Others v.
                      The State of Maharashtra and Another

             suicide seeing no option and that act must have been
             intended to push the deceased into such a position that
             he committed suicide.”
17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of
    instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
    thing. Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the accused
    to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot
    be sustained. This Court further observed that the intention of the
    legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear
    that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there
    has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also
    requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
    suicide seeing no other option and that act must have been intended
    to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
    However, this Court has cautioned that since each person reacts
    differently to the same provocation depending on a variety of factors,
    it is impossible to lay down a straightjacket formula to deal with such
    cases. Therefore, every such case has to be decided on the basis
    of its own facts and circumstances.
18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda
    and Others v. State of Gujarat,13 this Court has relied on S.S.
    Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply
    be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly
    discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing
    abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention
    to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled.
    This Court observed as follows:
             “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


13   2024 INSC 960 : [2024] 12 SCR 439 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679
1172                                                            [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                                 Supreme Court Reports


             be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the
             foundational requirement for establishing abetment under
             the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a
             deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute
             to the act of suicide.”
19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial
    element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a similar nature,
    this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,14
    laid down the parameters of what would be constituted to be an act
    of instigation. This Court observed as follows:-
             “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.”
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is
    to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an
    act”. It has been held that in order 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, however, a
    reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of
    being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court
    went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
    without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be
    said to be instigation.



14   2001 INSC 515 : [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                               1173

                              Prakash and Others v.
                      The State of Maharashtra and Another

21. Relying on the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), this
    Court in the case of Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana15
    observed as follows:
             “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
             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 above referred, 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 the 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 306 IPC.


15   2019 INSC 810 : [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC 301
1174                                                     [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          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
          factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the
          accused and the deceased.
          16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be
          affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact
          of one›s action on the mind of another carries several
          imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently
          by different persons; and so far a particular person›s
          reaction to any other human›s action is concerned, there
          is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess
          the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the
          question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to
          be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or
          urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the
          ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl
          could also vary for a variety of factors, including those
          of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence,
          each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts
          and circumstances.”
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that 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 has been
    held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                    1175

                         Prakash and Others v.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Another

     offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex
     attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent
     and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission
     of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of
     harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice
     unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels
     the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such
     an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
     It was further clarified that 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. It was further held that
     if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused
     intended nothing more than harassment or a 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. This Court held
     that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and
     could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with
     differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt
     with its own facts and circumstances.
23. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), the appellant
    before this Court was charged with having abetted the suicide by
    his brother-in-law (sister’s husband). The prosecution story was that
    there were strained relations between the deceased and his wife
    who at the material time was staying with the appellant therein. On
    25th July, 1998 the deceased went to the appellant to bring back his
    wife. There was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased
    who came back alone. The deceased told his brothers and other
    acquaintances that the appellant had threatened and abused him
    by using filthy words. On 27th July, 1998 the deceased was found
    dead. The deceased left a suicide note which showed his disturbed
    state of mind but otherwise he blamed the appellant for the suicide.
    The appellant’s petition for quashing of the charge-sheet filed under
    Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the High Court which led him
    to file an appeal before this Court which came to be allowed. While
    taking note of the disturbed state of mind of the deceased as was
    evident from the suicide note and the lack of intention on the part
    of the accused to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased,
1176                                                     [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


    the Court held that there was a time gap of 48 hours between the
    abusive language being used and the commission of suicide. As such,
    owing to the passage of 48 hours, giving the deceased enough time
    to reflect, there was no proximate link between the words uttered
    and the act of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
         “8. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3)
         SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943] the appellant was charged
         for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that
         the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked to
         the deceased “to go and die”. This Court was of the view
         that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased
         “to go and die” were not even prima facie enough to
         instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
         9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC
         731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the appellant was charged for
         an offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon
         the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as
         under: (SCC p. 731, para 1)
              “My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-
              law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed
              me. They beat me and abused me. My husband
              Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has
              illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because
              of these reasons and being harassed I want to
              die by burning.”
         10. This Court, considering the definition of “abetment”
         under Section 107 IPC, found that the charge and
         conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306
         is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment
         of the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the
         ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of
         the deceased.
         11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9
         SCC 618] this Court was considering the charge framed
         and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC
         on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive
         Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                      1177

                         Prakash and Others v.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Another

          had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband
          and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her
          husband who had said that she could go wherever she
          wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene
          on herself and had set herself on fire. Acquitting the
          accused this Court said: (SCC p. 620)
                “A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without
                intending the consequences to actually follow
                cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires
                to the court that a victim committing suicide was
                hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord
                and differences in domestic life quite common
                to the society to which the victim belonged and
                such petulance, discord and differences were
                not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
                individual in a given society to commit suicide,
                the conscience of the court should not be
                satisfied for basing a finding that the accused
                charged for abetting the offence of suicide should
                be found guilty.”
          12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts
          below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story
          that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of
          the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-1998 wherein it
          is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language
          and had reportedly told the deceased “to go and die”.
          For this, courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan,
          brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 CrPC
          when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from
          the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant
          had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The
          statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161
          CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going
          through the statement, we find that he has not stated that
          the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked
          him “to go and die”. Even if we accept the prosecution
          story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and
          die”, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of
1178                                                    [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


        “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes incitement
        or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action
        or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea,
        therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
        It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a
        quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken
        to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and
        emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said
        to have been told to the deceased were on 25-7-1998
        ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging
        on 27-7-1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken
        the abusive language seriously, he had enough time
        in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it
        cannot be said that the abusive language, which had
        been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998 drove the
        deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased
        on 27-7-1998 is not proximate to the abusive language
        uttered by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that
        the deceased committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would
        itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of
        the quarrel taken place on 25-7-1998 when it is alleged
        that the appellant had used the abusive language and
        also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had
        escaped notice of the courts below.
        ………….
        14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show
        that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One
        plausible reason could be that the deceased was without
        any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in
        drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt
        Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the
        suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the
        handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt
        Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement
        under Section 161 CrPC before the investigation officer.
        She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking
        wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that
        on 26-7-1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        1179

                          Prakash and Others v.
                  The State of Maharashtra and Another

           condition and was abusing her and other members of the
           family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that
           the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant
           had taken place on 25-7-1998 and if the deceased
           came back to the house again on 26-7-1998, it cannot
           be said that the suicide by the deceased was the
           direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on
           25-7-1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances
           independently, we are clearly of the view that the
           ingredients of “abetment” are totally absent in the
           instant case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It
           is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always
           remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge
           that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly
           appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of
           his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had
           ensued on 25-7-1998 where the appellant is stated to have
           used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials
           on record and facts and circumstances of the case into
           consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion
           that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is
           responsible for his death.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

24. It could thus be seen that this Court held that both the courts below
    had erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by
    the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken
    place on 25th July 1998 wherein it was alleged that the appellant
    therein had used abusive language and had reportedly told the
    deceased ‘to go and die’. It was held that even if one accepts the
    prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and
    die’, that itself did not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. This
    Court held that it was common knowledge that the words uttered
    in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment could not be taken to
    be uttered with mens rea. It has been held further that the alleged
    abusive words were said to have been told to the deceased on 25th
    July 1998 during a quarrel and the deceased was found hanging on
    27th July, 1998. This Court held that if the deceased had taken the
    abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think
1180                                                    [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     over and reflect and therefore, it could not be said that the abusive
     language which had been used by the appellant on 25th July 1998
     drove the deceased to commit suicide on 27th July 1998. It has
     been held that the suicide by the deceased was not proximate to
     the abusive language used two days prior. Additionally this Court
     held that a plain reading of the suicide note made it clear that the
     deceased was in great stress and depressed and the suicide note
     also clearly suggested that it was not the handiwork of a man with
     a sound mind and sense. As such, this Court held that there was
     no material to establish that the accused had abetted the suicide
     committed by the deceased.
25. Relying on the decision in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
    Sengar (supra), this Court in the case of Gurjit Singh (supra) set
    aside the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC as it was clear
    from the evidence on record that there was a time gap of about two
    months between the last visit of the deceased to her parents with
    regard to the illegal demand for money by the accused-appellant
    and the date of commission of suicide by the deceased. As such,
    this Court held that there was nothing on record to show that there
    was a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the
    illegal demand made by the accused-appellant. This Court observed
    as follows:
          “36. It could further be seen from the evidence on
          record that the time gap between the last visit of the
          deceased to her parents with regard to the illegal
          demand and the date of commission of suicide is
          about two months. As such, there is nothing on record
          to show that there was a proximate nexus between
          the commission of suicide and the illegal demand
          made by the appellant. In Sanju v. State of M.P. [Sanju
          v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
          1141] this Court found that there was time gap of 48
          hours between the accused telling the deceased “to
          go and die” and the deceased “committing suicide”.
          As such, this Court held that there was no material
          to establish that the accused had abetted the suicide
          committed by the deceased.”
                                               (emphasis supplied)
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        1181

                         Prakash and Others v.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Another

26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or
    incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of
    the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified
    on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the
    act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to
    each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide
    by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the
    accused person.
27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra) reiterated that the
    act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity
    that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which
    the person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held
    that the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit
    suicide had occurred two weeks prior and even the suicide note had
    been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased
    committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act
    had been done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity
    to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
          “11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third
          respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct,
          it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated
          the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment
          of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her
          husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him
          by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly
          happened more than two weeks before the date of
          suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done
          by the appellants in close proximity to the date of
          suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts
          of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit
          suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent
          for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.
          12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence
          punishable under Section 306 IPC was not made out
          against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their
          prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process
          of law.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)
1182                                                              [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                                 Supreme Court Reports


28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana,16
    observed as follows:-
             “20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano
             Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC
             OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred
             decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section
             306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45)
                     “45. … It is also to be borne in mind that in
                     cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must
                     be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement
                     to the commission of suicide. Merely on the
                     allegation of harassment without there being
                     any positive action proximate to the time
                     of occurrence on the part of the accused
                     which led or compelled the person to commit
                     suicide, conviction in terms of Section
                     306IPC is not sustainable.”
                                                           (emphasis supplied)
29. Having discussed the law on the subject, we now proceed to consider
    the facts of the present case in view of the established principles.
30. As per the version of the complainant, the following facts have
    emerged:
      i.     Appellant No. 1 got married to the deceased on 19th November
             2009.
      ii.    Disputes arose thereafter, and the parties started residing
             separately from 8th August 2013 with the deceased residing at
             her paternal house with her child.
      iii.   A mahalokadalat was held at the court in Sangamner on 17th
             February 2015 during which the appellants are alleged to have
             refused to cohabitate with the deceased or accept her or her
             child at her matrimonial house or settle the proceedings initiated
             by the deceased.
      iv.    On 20th March 2015, the deceased committed suicide.


16   2024 INSC 149 : [2024] 2 SCR 830 : (2024) 3 SCC 573
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                     1183

                         Prakash and Others v.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Another

31. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), this Court,
    under similar circumstances, had quashed the chargesheet under
    Section 306 of the IPC against the accused-appellant. A factor that
    had weighed with the Court in the said case was that there was a time
    gap of 48 hours being the alleged instigation and the commission of
    suicide. This Court held that the deceased was a victim of his own
    conduct, unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued between him
    and the appellant, 48 hours prior to the commission of his suicide.
32. In the case at hand, taking the allegations in the FIR at face value,
    the incident at the mahalokadalat had occurred on 17th February
    2015, while the deceased had committed suicide on 20th March
    2015. There is a clear gap of over a month between the incident at
    the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide. We therefore find
    that the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution
    story that the act of suicide by the deceased was a direct result of
    the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat.
33. We also find that the date of occurrence of the mahalokadalat is
    disputed. The appellants have vehemently argued before the trial
    court and the High Court that the mahalokadalat had not been held
    on the 17th February 2015 but instead had been held about a year
    earlier, and that the date of the mahalokadalat as mentioned in the
    FIR and in the statements of the witnesses, is factually incorrect.
    If this submission is to be accepted, the time gap between the two
    incidents would widen even further.
34. However, we do not wish to go into that issue. Even if we take
    the date of the mahalokadalat to be 17th February 2015 to be the
    factually correct one, there is enough gap between the two incidents
    to render the instigation or incitement by the appellants, nugatory.
    The cardinal principle of the subject-matter at hand is that there must
    be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the
    accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim. The
    close proximity should be such as to create a clear nexus between
    the act of instigation and the act of suicide. As was held in the case
    of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), if the deceased had
    taken the words of the appellants seriously, a time gap between
    the two incidents would have given enough time to the deceased to
    think over and reflect on the matter. As such, a gap of over a month
1184                                                      [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the proximate link
     between the two acts.
35. Apart from that, although an Accidental Death Report was lodged
    on the day of the incident by the deceased’s brother, there is no
    mention about any involvement of the appellants in the suicidal death
    of the deceased. Further, there is no mention about the incident that
    had occurred at the mahalokadalat which had put the deceased in a
    state of depression such that she frequently spoke about committing
    suicide. These facts are alleged for the first time in the FIR which
    was lodged five days after the incident.
36. We are of the considered view that the reasoning given by the High
    Court for refusal to discharge the appellants is completely perfunctory.
    The High Court observed that there is no allegation about any
    harassment or cruelty meted out by the appellants to the deceased
    in the Accidental Death Report, however, held that the allegations
    in the FIR could not be overlooked and the Accidental Death Report
    and the statements made in the Accidental Death enquiry would be
    a matter of trial. The High Court also took note of the disputed date
    of the mahalokadalat but held that incorrect mentioning of the date
    of the mahalokadalat in the FIR would not be a ground to discharge
    the appellants, considering the state of mind of the complainant, the
    deceased’s mother.
37. We further find that the prosecution has failed to prima facie establish
    that the appellants had any intention to instigate or aid or abet the
    deceased to commit suicide. No doubt that a young woman of 25
    years has lost her life in an unfortunate incident. However, in the
    absence of sufficient material to show that the appellants had intended
    by their words to push the deceased into such a position that she
    was left with no other option but to commit suicide, continuation of
    criminal proceedings against the appellants would result in an abuse
    of process of law and as such, we are inclined to allow the appeal.
38. In the result, we pass the following order:-
     i.    The present appeal is allowed.
     ii.   The impugned judgment and order of the High Court of
           Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad passed on 17th
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                     1185

                             Prakash and Others v.
                     The State of Maharashtra and Another

             October 2022 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 246 of 2021 and the
             order of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner dated 24th
             December, 2020 in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 are quashed
             and set aside; and
     iii.    The appellants are discharged from Sessions Case No. 75 of
             2015 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner. Their
             bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
39. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain