The Kerala High Court has set aside criminal charges against a Kasaragod man accused of abetting the suicide of a woman and her young daughter, holding that angry words spoken during a personal dispute cannot automatically amount to a criminal offence. The court ruled that there was no legal basis to proceed with charges under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 204 (destruction of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.
The decision was delivered by Justice C. Pratheep Kumar while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the accused, Safwan Adhur.
Read Also:- Custody Battles Can’t Be Won by Exclusion: Delhi High Court Upholds Father’s Rights
Background of the Case
The case arose from Crime No. 577/2023 registered at Melparamba Police Station in Kasaragod district. Safwan Adhur, the first accused, was alleged to have been in an extramarital relationship with the deceased woman.
According to the prosecution, the woman contacted Safwan after learning that he was planning to marry another person. During a phone conversation, a heated argument reportedly took place, in which the accused allegedly told her to “go away and die.”
Soon after, the woman allegedly jumped into a well along with her five-and-a-half-year-old daughter, leading to their deaths. Police registered offences under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 204 (destruction of evidence) of the IPC.
The Sessions Court had earlier decided to frame charges against the accused, following which he approached the High Court seeking discharge.
Read Also:- Remarried Childless Widow Can Continue Family Pension, Parents Have No Right: Delhi High Court
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the accused argued that even if the prosecution’s version was accepted in full, the ingredients of abetment were not satisfied. It was submitted that:
- The alleged words were spoken in anger during a quarrel.
- There was no intention to provoke or encourage suicide.
- Mere emotional outbursts cannot be treated as criminal instigation.
The prosecution opposed the plea, maintaining that the words spoken by the accused had a direct link with the tragic incident.
Court’s Observations
After examining the case records and earlier Supreme Court rulings, the High Court observed that intention is the key element in cases of abetment of suicide.
“The words ‘go away and die’, if spoken in the heat of a quarrel, cannot by themselves amount to instigation,” the court noted.
The judge relied on earlier judgments, including Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., which clarified that casual or emotional statements made during disputes do not automatically constitute criminal abetment.
The court further observed:
“It is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended, that is relevant for attracting Section 306 IPC.”
The judgment stressed that without clear evidence showing deliberate intention to push the victim towards suicide, criminal liability cannot be fastened.
Final Decision
The High Court held that the Sessions Court had erred in framing charges against the accused.
Setting aside the earlier order, the court ruled:
- The alleged statements were made in the heat of the moment
- There was no mens rea or intention to instigate suicide
- Charges under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 204 (destruction of evidence) IPC were unsustainable
Accordingly, the court allowed the criminal revision petition and discharged the accused from all charges.
Case Title: Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl. Rev. Petition No. 1224 of 2025
Decision Date: 28 January 2026
