Mere Threat Of Implicating Someone With False Criminal Case Does Not Amount To Abetment To Suicide: Calcutta HC

Post By 24law
February 20, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has held that a mere threat of implicating someone in a false criminal case does not amount to abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision was delivered by a Single Bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee while adjudicating a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused challenging the proceedings against them.

The Court categorically observed, "… even if all evidence on record including the charge sheet and the statement made by the witnesses are taken to be correct, I find that the acts of petitioners are too remote and indirect to constitute the offence under section 306 IPC. In short there is no material against the petitioners of such a nature that the victim was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. Furthermore a threat of implicating someone with false criminal case does not gain the status of abetment to commit suicide by the victim."

Factual Background

The case originated from an FIR registered in 2012 based on a complaint filed by the brother of the deceased. The accused, a couple, had taken a house on rent from the complainant's brother under a verbal agreement for three months. However, it was alleged that the accused engaged in illegal activities at the premises. The victim, upon learning of these activities, attempted to restrain them but was allegedly threatened with false criminal implications. Despite multiple visits to the police station, the victim failed to get any relief. Subsequently, the complainant and his wife requested the accused to vacate the premises, leading to alleged physical and mental harassment by the accused. The victim, unable to bear the situation, ultimately died by suicide, prompting the registration of a case under Section 306 IPC against the accused.

Court’s Observations

The Court stressed on the legal requirement for abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, emphasizing that a "positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge" is necessary to sustain such a charge. The Bench elaborated that "mere evasive allegation of harassment or threat without even mentioning date, time, or place of such occurrence of positive action, proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of petitioners which led or compelled the victim to commit suicide, conviction under Section 306 is not possible." It further noted that there was no material to suggest direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide.

Legal Reasoning and Precedents

The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, reaffirming the principles governing abetment to suicide:

In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Supreme Court held that instigation must involve incitement or urging to commit suicide, and a mere word uttered in anger does not amount to abetment.
In M. Mohan v. State (2011) 3 SCC 626, it was reiterated that "abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained."
The Court also referenced Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (2024 INSC 1020), which emphasized that "proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, in close proximity to the commission of suicide, is necessary to attract the offence of abetment."

Lack of Mens Rea and Quashing of Proceedings

Justice Mukherjee further noted that "mens rea is considered as the ‘guilty intention’ and unless it is found that the accused had the guilty intention to commit the crime, he could not be held guilty of committing the crime." The Court found no evidence of such guilty intention on the part of the accused, nor any material showing that they had instigated the victim to take such an extreme step. Additionally, the Court cited Mahendra Awase v. State of M.P. (2025 INSC 76), wherein the Supreme Court criticized the casual approach of police in registering offences under Section 306 IPC. The judgment warned against mechanically charging individuals without proper investigation into whether the alleged acts constituted abetment.

Verdict

In light of the legal principles and lack of evidence establishing abetment, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the accused. The Bench concluded, "The upshot of the discussion is that the prosecution has miserably failed to make out that the petitioners herein had abetted the victim to commit suicide. From the available materials, there is hardly any chance of conviction of the petitioners at the end of trial."