Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court quashed charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against an appellant accused of abetment of suicide. The court held that the evidence on record did not demonstrate any direct or indirect acts of instigation or abetment by the appellant. The proceedings against the remaining accused in the case were allowed to continue before the trial court.

The case pertained to the death of Souma Pal in July 2008, whose body was found on the railway tracks between Garia and Narendrapur Railway Stations in West Bengal. The post-mortem report indicated injuries consistent with jumping in front of a train, leading to a conclusion of suicide.

The deceased’s uncle filed an FIR on July 6, 2008, accusing her partner, Babu Das, his mother Laxmi Das (the appellant), and two others, Dilip Das and Subrata Das, of abetment of suicide. The complainant alleged that the deceased’s family disapproved of her relationship with Babu Das and sought the accused's assistance in ending it. He further claimed that Laxmi Das insulted the deceased over the relationship and made remarks contributing to her mental distress.

A chargesheet was filed against the accused under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 109 (abetment of an offense), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC. Statements from neighbors and witnesses recorded by investigators alleged altercations between the deceased and Babu Das days before her death, with one witness attributing specific remarks to Laxmi Das.

The accused filed a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which was rejected by the trial court. Subsequently, Laxmi Das and two other accused approached the Calcutta High Court seeking quashing of the charges. The High Court quashed charges against Dilip Das and Subrata Das, citing lack of evidence, but upheld the charges against Laxmi Das. Aggrieved, she approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC. Section 306 penalizes abetment of suicide, while Section 107 defines abetment as involving instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The bench, comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, observed that to establish abetment, there must be:

1. Direct or indirect acts of instigation.
2. A causal link between the instigation and the suicide.
3. Clear mens rea (intention) to abet the act.

The court referred to the statement attributed to Laxmi Das that allegedly provoked the deceased. It observed that such remarks, even if true, did not amount to instigation under Section 306 IPC. The judgment stated: “A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.”

The court further noted that the deceased’s family, not the appellant, disapproved of the relationship. It found no evidence suggesting that the appellant’s actions created circumstances that left the deceased with no alternative but to commit suicide.

Relying on precedents such as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the bench recorded: “There is no allegation against the Appellant of a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing suicide.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the charges against the appellant. The court ruled: “The acts of the appellant are too remote and indirect to constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC.”

The proceedings against the other accused, including Babu Das, were permitted to continue in accordance with the law. The judgment stated: “The present case is only confined to the appellant, Smt. Laxmi Das, and the Trial Court is free to proceed against the other accused person in accordance with law.”

Case Title: Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017
Bench:  Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma 

[Read/Download order]