Love Affair Fallout And Refusal To Marry, Without Prima Facie Instigation, Cannot Sustain Abetment To Suicide Cognisance: Gauhati High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati Single Bench of Justice Anjan Moni Kalita partly allowed an accused man’s plea, quashing the cognisance taken for abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC but allowing the case to proceed for offences under Sections 417 and 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The matter arises from allegations by the deceased minor girl’s father that the accused was in a relationship with her, had sexual relations on a promise of marriage, and then refused to marry her, following which she died by suicide. The Bench held that the refusal to marry, by itself, did not disclose prima facie instigation by the accused.
The proceedings stemmed from an FIR lodged on 20 July 2020 by the deceased girl’s father, alleging that the accused had been in a relationship with his daughter for about two years on a promise of marriage, had taken her to different places, and had established a physical relationship with her. It was alleged that on 16/17 July 2020 the accused informed her that he would not marry her, and that she died by suicide by hanging at home on 19 July 2020.
On registration of the FIR, offences under Sections 417 and 306 IPC were initially invoked. On the investigating officer’s request, Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was later added by a magistrate’s order dated 13 October 2020, and the matter was transferred to the Special Judge. The accused was arrested on 17 October 2020, and the investigating officer submitted a part charge-sheet under Sections 417/306/376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The accused challenged the cognisance order through a petition under Section 482 CrPC read with Sections 397/401 CrPC. He contended that a birth certificate showed the deceased was about 19 years old, questioned the basis for applying POCSO, disputed the ingredients of Sections 306 and 417 IPC, and relied on WhatsApp conversations to assert that the deceased denied any physical relationship.
The State and the informant opposed the petition, relying on the FIR, the charge-sheet and statements recorded during investigation, including statements under Section 161 CrPC, and maintained that the materials disclosed a sexual relationship on a promise of marriage and conduct linked to the suicide.
The Court stated that “Section 107 IPC provides for three (3) ingredients” and that “any of those three (3) ingredients must be present for invoking section 306 IPC.” It recorded that “The word 'instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.”
Turning to the case-specific materials, the Court noted: “it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner and the deceased girl was in a love relationship” and that “there are allegations of commission of sexual intercourse by the Petitioner on the deceased girl who was allegedly a minor.” It also recorded that “the Petitioner had refused to marry the deceased girl just two (2) days before her commission of suicide” and that the refusal was stated to be because “the Petitioner was going to marry another girl.”
After examining the record, the Court stated: “This Court has perused all the materials available in the TCR” and the annexures, but “other than the fact that the Petitioner refused to marry the deceased, no other vital material could be found.” It observed: “There are no materials to suggest that there was any instigation from the Petitioner” and “The element of conspiracy along with other person/s to commit suicide was also absent.” It further recorded: “This Court could not find the third element i.e. intentionally aiding” and “could not find any prima facie materials… which compelled the deceased to commit suicide.” On the allegation of distress, the Court stated that “that fact… is not sufficient to bring in the case under the purview of Section 107… and thereby invoking Section 306.”
The Court added that “section 306… has two primary ingredients” and that “it must necessarily be proved that the accused person had… contributed to the suicide… by some direct or indirect act or omission.” It recorded that “proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement… must be closely linked to the commission of suicide” and that “the instigation or provocation must have a clear mens rea.”
On behavioural aspects, the Court stated: “this Court has analysed the behavioural aspects of both the accused and the deceased,” and recorded that “there is no material on record which suggest that the deceased was having any history of being a very sensitive person.” As to the accused, it noted that “he was boosting about his sexual triumphs” but “this Court could not prima facie found any mens rea or intentional act.”
For age, the Court recorded that “the deceased girl was of 19 years at the time of commission of suicide” and that “while commission of the alleged offence, the deceased girl was a minor because the allegation was… during the last two (2) years.”
On the outcome of the prima facie review, the Court stated: “there is no case that has been made out… to invoke Section 306” and that taking cognisance under Section 306 “is bad in law… set aside and quashed.” On the sexual offence allegations, it recorded: “there are prima facie materials against the Petitioner for invoking Section 376… and Section 6 of the POCSO Act,” and stated: “Since this Court is not running a mini trial… the veracity… is to be looked into… by the learned Trial Court.”
The Court directed: “In view of the aforesaid prima facie findings, this Court set aside and quashes the cognisance taken by the learned Special Judge, Nagaon under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, however, this Court does not find any error in cognisance taken by the learned Special Judge, Nagaon of offences under Section 417/376 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In terms of the aforesaid conclusion, the instant petition is partly allowed to the extent, mentioned above. TCR to be sent back immediately.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: P. J. Saikia, Senior Advocate; Ms. M. Nirola, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. R. J. Baruah, Addl. PP, Assam; Mr. S. Nawaz, Advocate.
Case Title: Md. Rijuan v/s The State of Assam
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:17369
Case Number: Crl.Pet./800/2021
Bench: Justice Anjan Moni Kalita
