Supreme Court ruling on suicide abetment: ‘Words in the fit of anger do not amount to instigation’, Read Judgment

In a recent observation, the Supreme Court remarked, "there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide" and cautioned, "merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence" is insufficient to sustain a charge of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court further noted, "Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide."

This comes in the backdrop of a case involving the appellant, Mahendra Awase, who was accused of harassing a man, Ranjeet Chauhan, over loan repayment, allegedly leading to his suicide.

An FIR was registered on 31.12.2022 by Dharmendra, stating that his brother’s son, Ranjeet Chauhan, went missing on 11.10.2022. His body was later found hanging near Rangaon. During the inquest, a suicide note was recovered, implicating the appellant, Mahendra Awase, who had allegedly been harassing Ranjeet about a loan repayment. The appellant was charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide).

The appellant, Mahendra Awase, contended that he should be discharged from the proceedings as the evidence did not substantiate a charge of abetment of suicide. He argued that his actions related to the loan recovery did not amount to instigation or create a situation forcing the deceased to commit suicide.

The respondent, represented by the prosecution, argued that the appellant had harassed the deceased, leading to Ranjeet Chauhan’s suicide. The suicide note, along with witness statements, supported the claim that the appellant's actions contributed directly to Ranjeet’s distress and eventual death.

The Court observed that "there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide" and emphasized that "merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence" is not sufficient for a conviction under Section 306 IPC. The Court noted that "a word uttered in the fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

The Court further stated, "Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide...the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide."

Picture Source :