The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against six persons accused of abetting the suicide of a woman after her partner allegedly refused to marry her, holding that a refusal to marry, even if followed by suicide, does not by itself constitute abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that people react differently to situations and that a breakup ending in suicide cannot automatically be characterised as abetment to suicide.

The Court was hearing an appeal arising from a criminal revision before the Telangana High Court concerning a woman who had been in a consensual relationship with the first accused. The prosecution alleged that after he refused to marry her, she died by suicide.

The allegations were also made against five other accused, including the first accused's parents, sister, a friend and the proposed bridegroom of his sister.

The Court noted that the deceased and the first accused had been living together for around three months at his house and that their relationship had been accepted by his family.

The FIR was registered based on a statement given by the deceased's sister. According to the prosecution, the first accused subsequently refused to marry the deceased. It was alleged that the other accused had influenced him against marrying her.

The Court, however, found no material showing that the accused had instigated the deceased to take her own life.

“People react differently to situations and if a breakup ends up with suicide, it cannot always be termed an abetment to suicide,” the Court observed.

The bench further held that the alleged refusal to marry was neither intended to drive the woman to suicide nor could knowledge of such a consequence be attributed to the accused.

“The refusal to marry was not with an intention to drive the woman to death by suicide nor can knowledge be attributed to the accused that on such refusal, she would commit suicide,” the Court said.

“We are unable to find any instigation by the accused/appellants to drive the deceased to death by suicide. It was neither intended nor can it be said to be abetment. At the worst, even if we fully believe what has been stated by the 1 st informant, there was a refusal of marriage, which led to the woman committing suicide.”, the Court added.

As a result, the Court held that prosecution could not be sustained on the allegations made against the accused.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Aparna Bhat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yash S. Vijay- 3775, AOR Mr. Shikhar Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Joshua Tom Thomas, Adv. Mr. Saransh Khandelwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Devina Sehgal- 2691, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Mir Mukarram Ali, Adv. Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Mohd Shahib, Adv. M/s Shakil Ahmad Syed- 3088, AOR