Dark Mode
Image
Logo

Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 306 IPC, Holds No Proximate Act of Abetment Proven

Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 306 IPC, Holds No Proximate Act of Abetment Proven

Kiran Raj

 

The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal challenging the conviction of four individuals under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), setting aside the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had upheld their conviction for abetment of suicide. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a direct or proximate act of incitement leading to the suicide of the deceased.

 

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment while hearing the appeals against the Gujarat High Court’s decision in a case involving the alleged blackmailing of the deceased, which was claimed to have driven him to take his own life. The appellants had been sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, which was later affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the evidence on record, including the suicide note, did not establish the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC and directed that the appellants be acquitted.

 

Also Read: Supreme Court Defers Decision on Judicial Officers' Pension as Attorney General Submits Unified Pension Scheme Will Address Concerns

 

The case arose from an incident on April 25, 2009, when the deceased, Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar, was found lying motionless at his residence. His wife, Jaybalaben, filed a complaint on May 14, 2009, alleging that the deceased had committed suicide after being blackmailed by the accused, including Geetaben, with whom he had reportedly developed an intimate relationship. The prosecution alleged that the accused had obtained compromising photographs and videos of the deceased and used them to extort money and jewelry from him, leading to his financial distress and eventual suicide.

 

The prosecution relied on a suicide note allegedly recovered from the deceased’s pocket, which mentioned that he had been blackmailed and financially exploited by the accused. The note was sent for forensic examination, and the handwriting expert opined that it was written by the deceased. However, the prosecution did not produce the handwriting expert as a witness during the trial. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 306 IPC but acquitted them of charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

 

The appellants challenged their conviction before the Gujarat High Court, which upheld the trial court’s findings. They then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove that they had instigated or intentionally aided the deceased’s suicide. The defense contended that the suicide note surfaced 20 days after the death and was highly suspect. They also argued that there was no recovery of money or jewelry from the accused, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that they had financially exploited the deceased.

 

The Supreme Court examined the legal requirements for conviction under Section 306 IPC, referring to precedents such as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Rajesh v. State of Haryana, which held that to constitute abetment of suicide, there must be a clear and proximate act of instigation or aid leading to the suicide. The court observed:

"Mere allegations of harassment without a positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, cannot sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC."

 

The court also noted that the prosecution failed to establish that the alleged blackmailing had directly led to the suicide. It recorded that there was no evidence showing that the accused had recently demanded money or exerted pressure on the deceased immediately before his death. The court stated:

"No act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide, which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of ending his life."

 

The court further found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. The suicide note was not recovered at the time of the inquest but surfaced 20 days later, casting doubt on its authenticity. The prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of custody regarding the note. The court also observed that while the note mentioned the alleged blackmailing, it did not contain a direct reference to any specific incident of extortion immediately before the suicide.

 

On the issue of the forensic report, the court noted that the handwriting expert’s opinion was relied upon without the expert being examined as a witness. Citing Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, the court reiterated that expert opinion on handwriting is only corroborative and cannot be treated as conclusive proof without supporting evidence. It stated:

"The prosecution did not produce the handwriting expert before the court, thereby denying the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the expert and challenge the findings."

 

The court also noted the absence of recovery of the allegedly extorted money and jewelry from the accused, stating that this further weakened the prosecution’s case. It held that while the allegations in the suicide note raised suspicions, they did not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Also Read: Bombay High Court Quashes Scrutiny Committee’s Rejection, Upholds ‘Koli Mahadev’ Tribe Status Based on Established Lineage

 

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC. It held that the conviction was based on assumptions rather than substantive evidence. Allowing the appeal, the court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. The court directed that since the appellants were already on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.

 

Case Title: Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 322
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1388 of 2014
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

 

[Read/Download order]

Comment / Reply From

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!