Mere Use Of Insulting Remarks Like 'Impotent' Doesn't Constitute Abetment Of Suicide : Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Husband's In-Laws
The Supreme Court quashed an abetment to suicide case under Section 306 of the IPC against the husband's in-laws, ruling that merely calling him "impotent" in offensive language while taking their daughter (the deceased's wife) to her parental home after a marital dispute did not amount to abetment. An FIR was registered against the husband's in-laws after a husband's suicide note was...
The Supreme Court quashed an abetment to suicide case under Section 306 of the IPC against the husband's in-laws, ruling that merely calling him "impotent" in offensive language while taking their daughter (the deceased's wife) to her parental home after a marital dispute did not amount to abetment.
An FIR was registered against the husband's in-laws after a husband's suicide note was found alleging his in-laws for harassment, and calling him impotent, while taking his wife to her parental home.
The Madras High Court refused to quash the FIR against the in-laws, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih observed that the suicide note did not indicate direct inducement or persistent cruelty. Hurtful remarks (e.g., "impotent") alone do not establish abetment, the Court said.
The Court noted that the suicide took place almost a month after the alleged humiliation meted out to the husband and during the interim period, there was no contact between the deceased and the accused.
“From the suicide note, no abetment can be said to have been established that the accused instigated the deceased or there being any persistent cruelty or harassment which would make out an offence of abetment of suicide. Merely on the basis of the allegations of harassment and that too a month ago with in between there being no contact of any sort on the part of the Appellants, till the time of occurrence which can be said to have led or compelled the deceased to have committed suicide, the offence has not been made out. Mens rea cannot be presumed, but must be ostensibly present and visible, which is missing in the present case. It involves a mental process of instigating a person and without a positive act on the part of the Appellants which can be said to either to instigate or aid in committing suicide, the ingredients of the offence cannot be said to have been present.”, the court observed.
Mere Use Of Abusive Words Doesn't Amount To Abetment
"Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential, the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing," the Court stated.
“In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.”, the Court said, relying upon M. Arjunan V. State.
In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the abetment to suicide case against the Appellants.
“In the light of the above findings, when offence under Section 306 itself is not being made out continuance of the proceedings against the Appellants cannot be permitted.”, the court noted.
Case Title: SHENBAGAVALLI AND ORS. VERSUS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT AND ANR.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 512
Click here to read/download the judgment
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Adv. Mr. John Mathew, AOR Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Mona K. Rajvanshi, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. V Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Ms. Deepa S, Adv. Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Adv.