Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Bombay High Court: In an application seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 108 and 3(5), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the consequent proceedings thereof, the Single Bench of Urmila Joshi Phalke, J., allowed the application; and held that the investigation papers nowhere reveal that there was any positive act on the part of the applicants,due to which the deceased had committed suicide; and that the test to be applied is whether the material on record, even prima facie, indicates that the accused intended the consequence of the act, namely suicide.
It was further held thathere has to be a clear intention to commit the offence for being held liable under Section 306 IPC.
Background
The present application sought to quash the FIR registered against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the consequent proceedings. The said FIR was registered based on a report lodged by Non-Applicant 2, the wife of the deceased.
It was alleged that the applicants had borrowed money from the deceased and quarrelled over this. They would openly say that they would not return the money. The deceased had financial constraints, and due to the non-repayment of the money by the applicants, there was no other option but to commit suicide.
Also Read: Saying ‘go away and die’ in heat of passion not abetment of suicide under S. 306 IPC; Kerala HC discharges accused
Issues
-
Whether non-repayment of money was a sufficient reason for the deceased to commit suicide pursuant to Section 306, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)/Section 108 BNS?
-
Whether a person can be said to have instigated another so as to constitute abetment, by conduct amounting to goading, provoking, or inciting the commission of the act.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that the record revealed the existence of a monetary transaction between the applicants and the deceased. However, it did not disclose that non-repayment of the amount by the applicants had caused such financial constraints that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. Thus, insofar as the offence of abetment was concerned, the Court noted that the statements of the witnesses did not reveal any act on the part of the applicants that could have led the deceased to commit suicide. Even the video clip relied on by the prosecution merely reveals that the applicants were not repaying the money.
The Court stated that it was necessary to consider the principles governing the quashing of an FIR. In the context of abetment of suicide, the key question was whether non-repayment of money by the applicants constituted sufficient cause to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The Court noted that, to sustain a charge under this provision, the prosecution was required to establish that the accused had played a role in the commission of suicide, and that their conduct satisfied one of the ingredients under Section 107 IPC, namely, instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding.
The Court further stated that it is well settled that, to attract the offence of abetment, the existence of mens rea is essential. In the absence of knowledge or intention, no offence of abetment is made out. Such knowledge and intention must relate to the act alleged to have been abetted, namely, the act of committing suicide. Accordingly, there must be a clear case of direct incitement to commit the act.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Prabhu v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 137, which explained the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, and Sanju v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, which elaborated on the concept of abetment in this context. It was held that a mere indirect or oblique impact of the acts or utterances of the accused on the mind of the deceased, which may have influenced him, would not be sufficient to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide.
“A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be “instigation”.”
The Court referred to Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein the meaning of “instigation” was examined, and it was held that “instigation” means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage the doing of an act. The Court stated that, to satisfy the requirement of instigation, it is not necessary that specific words be used or that the act be expressly suggestive of the consequence; however, there must be a reasonable certainty of inciting such consequence. The Court noted that the present case was not one where the accused, by their acts, omissions, or continued conduct, created circumstances leaving the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. A combined reading of Sections 306, 107 and 108 IPC shows that a positive act of instigation or aiding is required, in the absence of which conviction cannot be sustained.
Also Read: Abetment of suicide | Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself would not amount to instigation under S. 107 IPC: Supreme Court
The Court laid down that, in cases of abetment of suicide, the test is whether the material on record, even prima facie, indicates that the accused intended the consequence of suicide. To attract the provision, it must be shown that the accused actually instigated or aided the act of suicide, and there must be direct or indirect incitement, with the accused playing an active role.
Decision
Applying the aforesaid principles, the Court observed that the material only disclosed a monetary transaction between the deceased and the applicants. The allegation was that the applicants had not repaid the amount, leading the deceased to commit suicide. However, there was no material to show that any act of the applicants constrained or compelled the deceased to take such a step. The video recording found in the deceased’s mobile phone merely indicated non-repayment and a grievance against the applicants. The allegation that the applicants had stated that they would not repay the amount was not substantiated by any material.
Accordingly, the Court held that the allegation of abetment was not supported by any material showing that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide due to the acts of the applicants. The material was insufficient to subject the applicants to trial, as there was no evidence of any positive act on their part leading to the suicide.
[Vijay Sitaram Zoting v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2388, decided on 30-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicants: S.M. Lodha, Advocate
For the non-applicants: N.B. Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State
