Safiya Malik

The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das has allowed an appeal and set aside the conviction of multiple accused for abetment of suicide read with common intention, directing that they be released from their respective bail bonds. The case arose from allegations that the deceased was taken out of his home at night, abused and threatened over claims of theft, chased while being called a “thief”, and that money was forcibly taken from his family, after which he was found hanging from a tree near the house. While the Court accepted that the death was suicidal, it held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt any clear mens rea, instigation, or direct act that drove the deceased to take his life.

The criminal appeal arose from a judgment and order dated 10 October 2012 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Nadia, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine.

Also Read: Party Accepting Section 11 Arbitrator Appointment Cannot Later Challenge Validity Of Arbitration Clause Under Pre-2015 Regime; Supreme Court

During investigation, a charge sheet was initially filed under Section 302/34 IPC. Upon committal, the trial court framed charges under Section 306/34 IPC. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the parents, brother of the deceased, independent witnesses, the investigating officer, and the autopsy surgeon. The defence contended that the deceased was habitually accused of theft, that there was no clear evidence of instigation or abetment by the accused, and that the investigation suffered from serious lapses. The trial court nevertheless convicted the appellants, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.

The Court observed that “the seminal issue falls for consideration that whether the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt, and whether the judgement and order of conviction is liable to be set aside.” It recorded that the complaint itself disclosed allegations of theft against the deceased and that the evidence showed pressure being exerted on the family to repay money allegedly stolen.

On evaluation of witness testimonies, the Court observed that “there are glaring inconsistences in the evidence of the family members itself.” It noted contradictions regarding who initially came to the house, who allegedly took the deceased out, and the sequence of events during the night. The Court recorded that “by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted that despite a huge mob gathered in the house in the mid of the night no noise was produced and no local people was present.”

With respect to independent corroboration, the Court observed that “excepting the parents and brother, no other evidence can be found to substantiate the contention of the de-facto complainant.” It further recorded that independent witnesses only spoke about the deceased being found dead and about his alleged habit of stealing, and none supported the prosecution version of forcible abduction or assault.

Relying on medical evidence, the Court observed that “the post-mortem report clearly speaks the death was in the nature of suicide,” and that no external injuries were found on the body, which prima facie negated allegations of physical assault by a large group shortly before death.

On the legal requirements of abetment, the Court observed, relying on precedent, that “abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing,” and that without a positive act of instigation or aid, a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained. It further observed that “there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence” and an active act intended to push the deceased into committing suicide.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that “no materials can be found in order to establish that there was instigation as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.” It recorded that another plausible version emerging from the evidence was that the deceased was upset after being scolded by family members due to allegations of theft and humiliation by villagers. The Court observed that where two views are possible, “the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.”

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Acquits In-Laws In Alleged Dowry Death Burning Case, Quashes Life Sentence On Unreliable Child Witness Account

The Court directed that “this criminal appeal stands allowed.” It further directed that “the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court is hereby set aside. The appellants be released from their respective bail bonds forthwith.” It also directed that “department is directed to forward a copy of the judgement along with the T.C.R to the concerned court for necessary compliance.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners:  Mr. Neguive Ahmed, Advocate; Ms. Priyanka Chowdhury, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Debasish Roy, Learned Public Prosecutor; Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Nirupam Dhali, Advocate

Case Title: Pabitra Roy & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal

Neutral Citation: 2026: CHC-AS:150

Case Number: CRA 696 of 2012

Bench: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das