The Kerala High Court has ruled that sending a draft divorce agreement to one’s spouse does not amount to abetment of suicide. The bench, led by Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath, set aside a trial court order that had added the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man whose wife allegedly committed suicide three days after receiving the document.
The case concerned Puthiya Purayil Shaji, whose wife died by suicide in November 2005. Following her death, the wife's family filed a complaint accusing Shaji and others of abetment to suicide and cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. After investigation, the police filed a final report charging only Section 498A IPC, omitting abetment to suicide.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Summons YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in ₹2.1 Crore Defamation Suit by TFI Media
Later, the public prosecutor filed a plea under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), requesting the court to add the Section 306 IPC charge. The trial court accepted this request. Shaji then moved the High Court challenging this decision.
"There is no evidence that handing over the divorce draft was intended to provoke or aid suicide," stated Justice Edappagath.
The High Court emphasized that for a charge under Section 306 IPC to stand, there must be clear evidence of instigation, intentional aiding, or direct or indirect incitement to commit suicide. The mere fact that the wife was upset after reading the draft and later died by suicide was not enough.
Read also:- Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings in Canara Bank fraud case after settling charges
The deceased’s mother, father, and brother (PWs 1 to 3) testified that the divorce agreement was given to the brother by the accused’s family and that the wife became emotionally distressed after reading it. However, they did not claim that the accused instigated or encouraged her to take such a step.
"The law requires active involvement—mere emotional distress isn’t enough to prove abetment," the Court observed.
Referring to established legal precedents, the Court reiterated that abetment of suicide must involve a mental process of instigation or conspiracy, not just emotional impact. It cited rulings such as Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal and Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, which clarified that abetment requires a clear link between the accused's actions and the suicide.
The Court found no such link in this case. There was no indication that the husband intended to mentally harass or provoke his wife into ending her life. The document was handed over, but there was no action or statement from the husband that could be seen as a push toward suicide.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Orders Re-examination for KPCL Recruitment Due to Lack of Clarity on Negative Marking
"Mere harassment without instigation is not enough to invoke Section 306 IPC," ruled the Court.
Importantly, the Court also addressed the legal power of the court under Section 216 CrPC to alter charges. While the court acknowledged it has the authority to change or add charges if new evidence comes to light, it maintained that such powers must be based on substantial evidence. In this instance, no new material justified adding the serious charge of abetment of suicide.
As a result, the High Court allowed Shaji's petition and reversed the trial court’s order, stating that the inclusion of Section 306 IPC was not legally sustainable.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Puthiya Purayil Shaji v. State of Kerala and Another
- Case No.: Crl.M.C. No. 3035 of 2014
- Judge: Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath
- Date of Judgment: May 22, 2025
- Petitioner’s Counsel: M. Ramesh Chander (Sr.), Aneesh Joseph, Denis Varghese
- Respondents’ Counsel: Sangeetha Raj (Public Prosecutor)
