Mere Refusal To Marry Is Not Abetment Of Suicide, Police 'Casually' Invoking S.306 IPC: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has observed that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) appears to be “casually and too readily resorted to by the police” and that trial courts should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a “play it safe” syndrome by mechanically framing charges under it.

The Court further observed that to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, there must be prima facie material indicating that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide within the meaning of Section 107 IPC and that mere harassment, emotional distress or refusal to marry, in the absence of any positive act of instigation, intentional aid or active participation, would not satisfy the statutory requirements of abetment. Applying the said principle, the Court set aside an order framing charge under Section 306 IPC against a man accused of abetting the suicide of a woman after allegedly refusing to marry her and discharged him from the proceedings. 

Justice Alok Mahra was dealing with a criminal revision challenging the order dated 14.01.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, whereby charge under Section 306 IPC had been framed against the revisionist. 

According to the prosecution, the deceased and the revisionist were in a relationship and intended to marry each other. It was alleged that after remaining in the relationship for some time, the revisionist refused to marry the deceased. On account of the said refusal, the deceased allegedly became depressed and ultimately committed suicide by administering an overdose of Midazolam (Mezolam). An FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased and, upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC was submitted against the revisionist. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charge under Section 306 IPC by order dated 14.01.2021, which was challenged in the present revision. 

The revisionist submitted that even if the entire prosecution case was accepted at its face value, the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC were not made out. It was contended that the only allegation against the revisionist was that he declined to marry the deceased and that such refusal, by itself, could not constitute abetment of suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC.

It was further submitted that there was no allegation or material suggesting any act of instigation, intentional aid or active participation on the part of the revisionist which could have compelled the deceased to take the extreme step.

Conversely,the complainant submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court was only required to examine whether a prima facie case existed against the accused and that a meticulous appreciation of evidence was not warranted. It was further submitted that after framing of charge, the trial had substantially progressed and most of the prosecution witnesses had already been examined. Therefore, interference with the order framing charge at that stage was not warranted.

The Court referred to Sections 306 and 107 IPC and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal and Prakash v. State of Maharashtra. Referring to the law laid down therein, the Court observed that “it is well settled that to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, there must be prima facie material indicating that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. Mere harassment, emotional distress or refusal to marry, in the absence of any positive act of instigation, intentional aid or active participation, would not satisfy the statutory requirements of abetment”.

Applying the said principle, the Court held that there were no grounds to frame charge under Section 306 IPC against the revisionist, even if the prosecution's case was taken on “a demurrer and at its highest”. The Court observed that the material collected during investigation only indicated that the revisionist allegedly refused to marry the deceased and that, except for the said allegation, “there was no material to show that the revisionist had intentionally provoked, instigated or aided the deceased in committing suicide. The statements recorded during investigation also did not disclose any overt act or conduct on the part of the revisionist which could reasonably be construed as constituting abetment within the meaning of law”.

Importantly, commenting on the misuse of Section 306 IPC, the Court further observed:

“Hon'ble Apex Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted…Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide”.

It further observed that “it is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down under Section 306 IPC so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306”.

Consequently, holding that the case against the revisionist was groundless for framing of charge under Section 306 IPC, the Court discharged the revisionist from the proceedings in the case pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal and quashed and set aside the said proceedings.

Accordingly, the criminal revision was allowed and the order dated 14.01.2021 framing charge under Section 306 IPC was set aside. 

Case: Shardul Negi v State Of Uttarakhand and Another [Criminal Revision No. 162 of 2021]

Click Here To Read/Download Order