Threats To Publish Intimate Photos Not 'Abetment': Calcutta High Court Affirms Acquittal In Man's 2015 Suicide Case
The Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri has refused to overturn the 2019 acquittal of two men accused of abetting the suicide of a Jalpaiguri resident, holding that the prosecution failed to establish any proximate act of instigation, intentional aid, or continuous conduct linking the accused to the victim's death. The Court reiterated that past threats or strained...
The Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri has refused to overturn the 2019 acquittal of two men accused of abetting the suicide of a Jalpaiguri resident, holding that the prosecution failed to establish any proximate act of instigation, intentional aid, or continuous conduct linking the accused to the victim's death. The Court reiterated that past threats or strained relations, without a direct and immediate nexus to the suicide, cannot sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC.
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury dismissed the appeal filed by the victim's father, who alleged that the accused had harassed his son over an extended period, threatened to publish intimate photographs of the victim and his wife, and sought to build an illicit relationship with the victim's spouse. These acts, he argued, drove the victim to consume carbolic acid in August 2015.
The Bench noted that the death occurred on 18 August 2015, and none of the accused were present at the place or time of the incident. Although the family testified that the accused had made threatening phone calls and issued warnings over several months, the Court found long gaps and lack of continuity between these alleged threats and the ultimate act of suicide.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), the Court held that Section 306 requires proof of an active role, such as instigation or conduct so persistent and coercive that it leaves the victim with no option but to take his own life. The prosecution, the Bench said, failed to demonstrate such a causal connection.
The victim's father (PW-1), wife (PW-2), and brother (PW-3) all testified that the accused had threatened to circulate intimate photos and had allegedly pressured the victim's wife. However, the Bench emphasised that the evidence lacked corroboration, especially regarding the claim that the accused attempted to cultivate an illicit relationship with the victim's spouse.
The call detail records and witness statements did not place the accused in the vicinity of the victim near the time of the incident. The Bench noted that the victim had recently returned from Durgapur, was depressed, and died “4–5 days thereafter”, but no evidence showed any contact from the accused in that critical period.
The Court also took note of the trial court's findings regarding defects in investigation and prosecution but held that even correcting for these, the evidence was insufficient to overturn the acquittal.
Reiterating the principles laid down in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (2024), the Bench observed that an appellate court may interfere with an acquittal only when the decision is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible. The trial court's appreciation of evidence, the Bench held, was a “plausible view” supported by the record.
Finding no material that could justify reversal of the Section 306 acquittal, the Bench affirmed the 2019 judgment of the Sessions Court and dismissed the appeal.
Case: Ashok Kumar Kundu Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: CRA 25 of 2019