The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has refused to discharge an accused facing charges of abetment of suicide, rape, stalking and sexual harassment, holding that the absence of a suicide note alone cannot justify discharge when other material raises a grave suspicion against the accused. Justice Pushpendra Yadav dismissed the criminal revision challenging the trial court's decision to frame charges.
Background
The case arose after a woman died by suicide on January 28, 2023, at her father's house. During the initial inquiry, her family members alleged that the accused had repeatedly harassed and stalked her and sent obscene messages. The investigation subsequently led to the registration of charges under Sections 306, 376, 354-D and 354-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The accused challenged the trial court's order dated February 24, 2025, rejecting his discharge application. He argued that there was no suicide note or sufficient material establishing abetment. He also disputed the rape charge, contending that the alleged physical relationship was consensual, and pointed to an earlier acquittal in a separate case.
The High Court examined witness statements, medical and forensic material, DNA profiling and other evidence collected during the investigation. The prosecution alleged a continuing pattern of harassment, threats, stalking and obscene communications. The Court observed that the cumulative effect of this material required consideration at trial rather than dismissal at the preliminary stage.
Rejecting the argument based on the absence of a suicide note, the Court held:
"Mere absence of a suicide note, by itself, cannot justify discharge where the material on record otherwise raises a grave suspicion that the deceased committed suicide, prima facie, due to the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, which was capable of provoking, urging or encouraging the deceased to do so."
The Court clarified that determining whether the alleged conduct amounted to abetment required a detailed examination of the evidence. It stated:
"Whether such conduct amounts to instigation or intentional aid within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC, whether the requisite mens rea was present, and whether there was a proximate nexus between the alleged conduct and the suicide are matters which require appreciation of evidence during trial."
The Court also rejected the argument that the pending Cyber Cell report justified discharge, noting that witness statements and medical, forensic and other material were already available. It further held that the disputed questions surrounding the alleged sexual relationship could not be conclusively determined at the charge-framing stage.
Justice Pushpendra Yadav found no illegality in the trial court's decision to frame charges under Sections 306, 376, 354-D and 354-A IPC.
The High Court dismissed Criminal Revision No. 1097 of 2025 and upheld the impugned order, clarifying that its observations would not determine the accused's guilt or innocence at trial.
Case Details
Case Title: S.K. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1097 of 2025
Judge: Justice Pushpendra Yadav
Decision Date: October 13, 2026
