Kiran Raj

The Calcutta High Court, in a detailed judgment, has quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners who were charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged abetment of suicide. The court held that the essential legal ingredients required to substantiate the charge of abetment were absent, thereby making the continuation of the trial unwarranted. The judgment also reiterated the importance of ensuring that cases under Section 306 IPC must satisfy the necessary legal thresholds before being pursued in a court of law.

The case arose from an FIR registered on May 2, 2012, based on a written complaint filed by the de facto complainant. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, a married couple, had taken up tenancy in the house of the complainant’s brother on January 18, 2011, under a verbal agreement for a period of three months. According to the complaint, the petitioners engaged in illicit activities on the rented premises.

The complainant further alleged that the victim, the owner of the rented premises, attempted multiple times to prevent the petitioners from carrying out such activities but was unsuccessful. It was further claimed that certain police officials were complicit in these activities and allegedly threatened the victim with false criminal charges. The complainant stated that the victim faced continuous harassment and threats from the petitioners and police personnel, leading to severe mental anguish. On May 2, 2012, the victim reportedly died by suicide as a result of the prolonged distress caused by these threats and circumstances.

A case was subsequently registered under Section 306 IPC at Kandi Police Station, and the petitioners were charge-sheeted following an investigation.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the case lacked the fundamental elements required for a charge under Section 306 IPC. It was contended that no direct evidence suggested the petitioners had incited, encouraged, or aided the commission of suicide by the victim. The petitioners’ counsel further pointed out that there was no suicide note left by the deceased, and there was no explicit evidence linking the petitioners to any instigation of the act.

It was also submitted that the deceased and the petitioners were not residing in the same premises at the time of the incident, as the victim lived nearly two kilometers away from the rented house. The counsel argued that even if the prosecution's allegations were taken at face value, they did not meet the legal threshold necessary to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. Relying on various judicial precedents, the counsel contended that mere disputes, harassment, or threats do not automatically amount to abetment unless they amount to active encouragement or incitement of the suicide.

Opposing the plea for quashing the proceedings, the complainant’s counsel contended that the FIR and charge sheet contained sufficient material to justify the continuation of trial. It was argued that the threats issued by the petitioners, coupled with the mental and financial distress caused to the victim, were sufficient to establish a case of abetment.

The complainant’s counsel referred to newspaper reports that suggested that the petitioners had been involved in a honey trap business and other unlawful activities in the rented accommodation. It was further argued that the threats made by the petitioners amounted to instigation under Section 107 IPC, thereby fulfilling the essential requirement of abetment.

The counsel for the State, while placing the case diary before the court, maintained that sufficient materials were collected during the investigation, justifying the framing of charges. The State contended that the matter should go to trial to ascertain the full extent of the allegations and determine culpability.

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, while examining the legal tenability of the case, observed that abetment under Section 306 IPC requires an active role of the accused in instigating or aiding the commission of suicide. The court noted that the essential component of "instigation" was missing from the present case.

The court cited multiple Supreme Court rulings, including S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371, and State of Kerala v. Unnikrishnan Nair (2015) 9 SCC 639, which have consistently held that mere allegations of harassment or disputes do not constitute abetment unless they lead directly to the act of suicide. The court stated that unless there is a direct and proximate link between the actions of the accused and the decision of the deceased to end his life, charges under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.

The court further observed that the victim had not left any suicide note, and the prosecution failed to provide any direct evidence of incitement or provocation. The judgment noted that even if the petitioners had allegedly threatened the victim with false criminal implications, this alone did not constitute "instigation" under the definition provided in Section 107 IPC.

The court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish any evidence that would justify the continuation of the trial. The judgment stated that allegations made in the FIR were vague and lacked specific details regarding the nature, time, and place of threats. The court also noted that there was no continuous harassment or pressure that could be considered "unbearable" and that the victim’s suicide was not a direct consequence of any specific act by the petitioners.

Justice Mukherjee further referred to the Supreme Court's recent observations in M. Vijay Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) 4 SCC 633, wherein it was held that for a charge under Section 306 IPC to be sustainable, the instigation must be of such a nature that the victim is left with no other option but to commit suicide.

Accordingly, the court allowed the criminal revision petition and quashed the proceedings in Kandi P.S. Case No. 258 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 607 of 2012.

Case Title: Madusree Ghosh & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: C.R.R. 4233 of 2017
Bench: Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

[Read/Download order]