Bombay HC: Refusal to Marry After Breakup Not Abetment of Suicide

Post By 24law
January 18, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has clarified that mere refusal to marry someone after the breakup of a long-term relationship cannot be construed as abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, observed that instigation or provocation, as essential ingredients for establishing abetment, were absent in the present matter.

The Case Overview

The case involved a criminal revision application filed by the accused, Vaibhav Mawale, challenging the rejection of his discharge application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The accused was charged under Section 306 of the IPC in connection with the suicide of his former partner, with whom he had been in a nine-year relationship. The prosecution alleged that the victim took her own life after the accused refused to marry her. The victim’s father lodged a complaint based on a detailed suicide note left by the deceased. It was alleged that the accused had promised marriage, developed a physical relationship with the victim, and later ended the relationship, leading the victim to spiral into depression.

High Court’s Observations

The High Court delved into the essential elements required to prove abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, as defined in Section 107 IPC. The Court highlighted that:

For an act to qualify as abetment, there must be evidence of direct or indirect instigation or intentional aiding by the accused.

The Court noted that the victim’s suicide occurred several months after the breakup, demonstrating no immediate connection between the accused’s actions and the victim’s decision to end her life.

The exhaustive suicide note and transcripts of WhatsApp chats revealed a consensual relationship between the two. The chats also indicated that the accused had ended the relationship months prior to the suicide.

“Breaking a relationship, though emotionally distressing, cannot be equated with abetment to suicide. There is no evidence to suggest that the accused provoked or incited the victim to take such a drastic step,” the Court observed.

Legal Framework

The judgment reiterated key principles laid down in prior Supreme Court rulings regarding abetment of suicide:

In M. Mohan v. State, the apex court emphasized that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or aiding another person to commit suicide. Mere emotional turmoil arising from a breakup does not suffice.

Referencing Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the High Court underscored that instigation requires a deliberate act intended to provoke the victim’s suicide.

The Court examined the victim’s suicide note and other evidence presented by the prosecution. It found that the alleged physical relationship was consensual and not based on any promise of marriage. Furthermore, the victim continued to communicate with the accused even after the relationship ended, showing no evidence of provocation or harassment. The judgment stated: “The victim’s tragic decision was a result of her own mental state rather than any act or instigation by the accused. The prosecution’s evidence fails to establish a prima facie case of abetment to suicide.”

Allowing the revision application, the High Court quashed the trial court’s order rejecting the discharge application. It held that subjecting the accused to a trial in the absence of sufficient evidence would be an “empty formality” and an abuse of the judicial process. The accused was thereby discharged from the charges under Section 306 IPC. This ruling provides significant legal clarity, emphasizing that emotional consequences of a breakup, while unfortunate, cannot automatically lead to criminal liability under Section 306 IPC.