Telling Someone ‘Go Away And Die’ In Heat Of Quarrel Without Mens Rea Not Abetment Of Suicide: Kerala High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C Pratheep Kumar set aside a Sessions Court order that had declined to discharge an accused man and had proposed framing charges for abetment of suicide and destruction of evidence. The prosecution alleged that during a quarrel with a woman with whom he had an intimate relationship, the accused made a remark telling her to die, after learning she had questioned his proposed marriage to another woman; the woman later died by suicide along with her young child. The Court held that such angry, spur-of-the-moment words, without the necessary intention, do not constitute abetment of suicide, and discharged the accused of both offences.
The prosecution alleged that the accused was involved in an extramarital relationship with the deceased. It was alleged that when the deceased came to know that the accused intended to marry another woman, she contacted him over the phone and questioned his decision. During the ensuing verbal altercation, the accused allegedly uttered the words “go away and die.”
Also Read: Confession Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court
The prosecution case further stated that the deceased, allegedly mentally disturbed due to the said utterance, later jumped into a well along with her minor daughter and died by suicide. On this basis, the Sessions Court decided to frame charges against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused approached the High Court challenging the rejection of his discharge application, contending that even if the allegations were accepted in entirety, the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide were not made out. The State opposed the revision petition, maintaining that the material on record justified framing of charges.
The Court examined the scope of the offence of abetment of suicide and the statutory requirement of intention. It referred to Section 306 IPC and the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC. Relying on precedents, the Court noted that mere utterance of words during a quarrel cannot automatically amount to instigation.
Referring to the decision in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., the Court recorded: “Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’.” The Court further noted that “presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation” and that words uttered in a fit of anger or emotional outburst cannot ordinarily be treated as intentional incitement.
The Court also relied on Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., observing that “words which are casual in nature and often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people do not amount to abetment of suicide.”
Placing reliance on its earlier decision in Cyriac v. S.I. of Police, the Court recorded: “The act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts consequence of suicide.” It further observed: “What is important is the intention of the accused and not what is felt by the deceased. In the instant case also, the words, “go away and die” made by the petitioner was in the midst of a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased, in a heat of passion without having any intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide and as such, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out.”
The Court directed that “this Crl. Revision Petition is allowed. Annexure-A4 order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The petitioner is discharged of the offences punishable under Ss.306 and 204 of IPC,” in exercise of powers under “Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS.”
The decision of the Sessions Court “by which he decided to frame charge against the petitioner under S.306 and S.204 IPC” shall not survive, and the petitioner shall stand discharged from the said offences in the pending sessions case.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri R. Anas Muhammed Shamnad, Advocate; Sri C.C. Anoop, Advocate; Sri Saleek C.A., Advocate; Sri Thareek T.S., Advocate; Sri Hamdan Mansoor K., Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri A. Vipin Narayan, Senior Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:6717
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 1224 of 2025
Bench: Justice C. Pratheep Kumar
