The Supreme Court of India recently reinforced the legal principle that for abetment to suicide charges to stand, there must be a direct and immediate link between the accused's actions and the victim's suicide. In a judgment delivered on March 27, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih upheld the quashing of an abetment to suicide case against a business partner of the deceased, emphasizing the need for a "close proximity" between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide.
Case Background
The case stemmed from the suicide of a man who was a partner in M/s. Soundarya Constructions, alongside Respondents 2 and 3. The deceased was found hanging on April 14, 2024, and the police initially classified it as a suicide. However, on May 18, 2024, his wife discovered a handwritten suicide note accusing his business partners of harassment, blackmail, and cheating. Based on this note, an FIR was registered on May 22, 2024, under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR, ruling that the allegations did not establish a direct case of abetment to suicide as per Section 306 IPC. The appellant, the deceased’s wife, then moved the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the abetment to suicide charges, emphasizing that the required "close proximity" between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide was absent.
"We are, therefore, of the considered view that even taking the allegations at their face value, it cannot be said that the allegations would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide," the Court noted.
The Court relied on a precedent set in Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835, where a one-month gap between alleged instigation and suicide was deemed insufficient to establish abetment. In this case, the 39-day gap between the alleged harassment and suicide further weakened the prosecution's argument.
The High Court had also dismissed the charge under Section 420 IPC, arguing that the deceased had ample opportunity to report any fraudulent activities during his lifetime. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this aspect of the ruling, stating that a fraud case can still be pursued posthumously if sufficient evidence is available.
"The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in our view, while quashing the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC, has acted in a casual and cursory manner," the Supreme Court observed. "If the learned Single Judge was of the view that even the investigation papers did not constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, then reasons should have been provided as to why the collected material was insufficient."
The Supreme Court thus partially upheld the High Court's decision:
- It affirmed the quashing of the abetment to suicide charge (Section 306 IPC) due to lack of direct instigation.
- It disagreed with the dismissal of the cheating charge (Section 420 IPC), stating that the case could proceed if fraud was substantiated.
Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: R. SHASHIREKHA VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Sr. Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Nishant, AOR Mr. Madhvendra Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. C B Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Sai Shakti, Adv. Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv. M/S. Gururaj & Nayak, AOR
