Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Abetment To Suicide Charge, Says No "Direct, Demonstrable Link" Between Actions Of Accused And Victim's Decision
The Rajasthan High Court overturned a trial court order which had charged the accused–a private cricket coach for abetment to suicide of fellow coach along with criminal defamation, wherein the deceased was allegedly harassed by the accused within a Whatsapp group. The court observed that notably there was no suicide note discovered near the deceased and the allegation of harassment and...
The Rajasthan High Court overturned a trial court order which had charged the accused–a private cricket coach for abetment to suicide of fellow coach along with criminal defamation, wherein the deceased was allegedly harassed by the accused within a Whatsapp group.
The court observed that notably there was no suicide note discovered near the deceased and the allegation of harassment and torture by the accused was serious but did not sufficiently establish that crime under IPC Section 306 was committed. The court further said that prosecution is supposed to demonstrate a clear motive for the accused to abet the suicide, which was not the case herein.
Justice Manoj Kumar Garg opined that unlike the requirement of a direct and demonstrable link between the actions or omissions of the accused and the victim's decision to commit suicide, there was no evidence to prove the same. It was further opined threats or harassment, without evidence of direct participation in suicide, was not sufficient.
"In the present case, it is noteworthy that no suicide note was discovered in proximity to the deceased, which significantly complicates the task of determining the motive behind the individual's tragic decision to take his own life. The assertion of harassment and torture made by the complainant against the petitioner, while serious, does not suffice to establish culpability under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to abetment of suicide. To elaborate, the legal framework requires a direct and demonstrable link between the actions or omissions of the accused and the victim's decision to commit suicide. Without concrete evidence substantiating the claims of harassment—such as documented instances of alleged abuse or coercive behavior— the mere allegations cannot meet the threshold of proof necessary for framing charges under section 306 of I.P.C. In the absence of substantial evidence directly correlating the petitioner's conduct with the deceased's suicide, the allegations alone fall short of satisfying the legal criteria for establishing abetment under section 306 of I.P.C. Thus, it raises serious questions regarding the validity of the allegations and their ability to substantiate an offence under Indian law".
The Court was hearing a revision petition moved by the petitioner against the order of the Trial Court wherein charges were framed against the petitioner under IPC Sections 306(abetment to suicide), 500(criminal defamation), 501(Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory), 504(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace).
A Complaint was filed by the brother of the deceased alleging that the deceased, who was a private cricket coach, was subjected to animosity from the petitioner–a fellow coach and a co-accused, manifested in the harassment and threats on a Whatsapp Group. It was alleged that such harassment led to the deceased committing suicide.
It was argued by the petitioner that there was no suicide note recovered that could establish connection between the petitioner and the alleged offence. Further all of the witnesses testified that neither witnessed the suicide nor observed any individual in the proximity to the scene. Hence, it was submitted that no evidence was available against the petitioner.
After perusing the records, as well as the settled law on the matter, the Court reiterated that for framing charges of abetment to suicide, it had to be considered whether the abettor intentionally instigated the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment was not sufficient. Referring to various decisions the high court said:
"Even if all the evidence on record, including the charge-sheet and witness statements, is presumed to be accurate, there is no substantive evidence against the petitioner for attempt to abet the complainant to commit suicide. No allegation has been made against the accused that would suggest that the complainant was left with no alternative but to attempt suicide. The prosecution is required to demonstrate a clear motive for the accused to abet the suicide. In the absence of any proof indicating the active involvement or role of accused in the events leading to the attempt, it would be unjust to proceed with the charge. Acts such as threats or harassment, without evidence of direct participation in the suicide, cannot be deemed sufficient to establish abetment".
Similarly, in relation to charge of defamation too, the Court found no evidence and held that in absence of any substantiation of the petitioner's involvement in disseminating derogatory communications regarding the deceased, these allegations could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the court set aside the trial court order and discharged the petitioner from the charges framed against him.
Title: Kapil Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 159