Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun held that, for establishing “instigation” in an offence of abetment of suicide, it is not necessary that the accused’s words be capable of compelling the victim to take their life; it would suffice if they are suggestive of such a consequence. The Court made this observation while considering a plea seeking to quash criminal proceedings against a petitioner accused under Sections 306 and 113 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from allegations that the petitioner, a partner in a company facing financial distress, had exerted pressure on another partner to meet outstanding dues, following which the latter ended his life. The Court dismissed the plea, holding that the issue required full examination at trial.

The case concerned allegations arising from the death of a businessman who was a co-founder of a private company formed along with the accused and his wife. The deceased had financed both his and the accused’s shares in the venture using funds from his own proprietary concern. The company later experienced serious financial difficulties, which resulted in its inability to pay staff salaries and meet liabilities. The prosecution alleged that the accused, who were managing the day-to-day affairs of the company, directed employees and creditors to approach the deceased for payment and compelled him to settle the outstanding amounts. It was alleged that this pressure led the deceased to commit suicide by self-immolation at his parental home.

Also Read: Insurer Liable to Pay Compensation Despite Route Deviation; Entitled to Recover From Owner: Supreme Court

The police registered the case under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, later altering it to include offences under Sections 306 and 113 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation yielded a final report citing a suicide note, alleged to be in the handwriting of the deceased, which mentioned acts of betrayal by the accused and included a note stating that one of the accused had telephoned and threatened him on the night before his death. The accused denied the allegations, contending that the deceased’s suicide resulted from his inability to cope with financial stress rather than any instigation. They argued that the material produced did not disclose any act of abetment or the presence of mens rea, and challenged the prosecution’s reliance on the suicide note and unverified call data records.

The Court recorded that “for attracting the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the accused should have instigated the victim to commit suicide.” It referred to the Supreme Court decision in Prakash and Others and noted that close proximity between instigation and suicide is a “cardinal aspect.”

It stated that the victim was “under tremendous mental pressure by reason of the financial crisis faced by the company and his own proprietary concern.” It further recorded that forensic evidence confirmed that the suicide note was written by the same person who wrote the other pages of the notebook. The Court observed that the note “mentions about the treachery committed by the accused” and that it “contains a tailpiece where the author has noted that the petitioner had called over phone and threatened that he will be taught a lesson.”

The Court stated that for instigation, “it is not necessary that the words spoken must be capable of compelling the victims to commit suicide” and that “it would suffice if the instigation is suggestive of the consequence.” It recorded that whether the accused’s actions were proximate enough to have a nexus with the suicide could be decided only after evidence is appreciated holistically.

The Court quoted Chitresh Kumar Chopra, noting that instigation may be inferred where the accused creates circumstances leaving the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. It reproduced that instigation requires that the accused “kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission,” and that the accused must have had “the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.” It further recorded that “presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Acquits Assam Migrant Labourer Sentenced To Death For Rape-Murder Of 60-Year-Old Woman

It then noted the principle from Naresh Aneja that the High Court “is not expected to conduct a mini trial or minute examination of the records for deciding whether to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

The Court ordered that “the Crl.M.C is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach the trial court. if a discharge petition is filed, the court below is bound to pass a reasoned order thereon.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Dr. S. Gopakumaran Nair (Senior Advocate), Shri S. Prasanth, Sri. Sooraj T. Elenjickal, Sri. K. Arjun Venugopal, Shri. Aswin Kumar M J, Shri. Arun Roy, Sri. Shahir Showkath Ali, Smt. Helen P.A.

For the Respondent: SRI. Sanal P. Raj, Public Prosecutor.

Case Title: Sivadasan Nair K.G. v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:76800
Case Number: Crl.M.C No.1229 of 2021
Bench: Justice V.G. Arun