Telling Someone 'Go Away And Die' In Heat Of Quarrel Doesn't Amount To Abetment Of Suicide: Kerala High Court

Justice C Pratheep Kumar, was delivering the judgement in a criminal revision petition against a Sessions Court order rejecting the application for discharge.

The Session Judge has also proposed to frame charges under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 204 (destruction of document to prevent its production in evidence) of IPC.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner had an affair with the second accused, who has committed suicide. When the second accused came to know that the petitioner was about to marry another woman and questioned the same, the petitioner scolded the deceased saying “go away and die”. It is alleged that the deceased mentally disturbed by this encounter, committed suicide.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the comment made by the petitioner was in a heat of passion and was without any intention to abet the deceased to commit suicide and hence the offence under Section 306 is not made out.

The Court examined the section 306 of IPC and have also examined Section 107 which defines the term abetment as instigating, conspiring or intentionally aiding someone to commit an offence.

Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, including Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P [2002 KHC 1270], Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P.[1995 KHC 3306], the Court underlined that the term instigation involves incitement coupled with mens rea.

The Court has also referred to Cyriac v SI of Police [2005 KHC 1021], which held that even abusive or humiliating conduct does not constitute abetment unless it is reasonably capable of indicating an intention to provoke suicide.

The Court thus 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 further added that since the allegations do not constitute the offence under Section 306, the offence under Section 204 of IPC will also not be attracted.

With these observations, the Court set aside the order by the Sessions Judge by which he decided to frame charge against the petitioner.

The Court thus allowed the criminal revision petition and discharged the petitioner of offences punishable under Section 306 and 204 of IPC.

Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet 1224/ 2025

Case Title: Safwan Adhur v State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 52

Counsel for Petitioner: R Anas Muhammed Shamnad, C C Anoop, Saleek C A, Thareek T S, Hamdan Mansoor K

Counsel for Respondent: A Vipin Narayan (Sr. PP)