Case Note & Summary
The State of West Bengal appealed against the High Court's order discharging the respondents-accused from the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim, a painter and artist, was taking English coaching from the first respondent, Indrajit Kundu, and developed intimacy with him. On 5 March 2004, she visited his house to finalize marriage plans, but the parents (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) shouted at her, calling her a 'call-girl' and stating they would marry their son elsewhere. The first respondent did not protest. The victim returned home disturbed and committed suicide by hanging the next day, 6 March 2004. Two suicide notes were found: one stated that the parents abused her, and the other addressed to the first respondent called him a coward for not responding. A case was registered under Section 306 IPC, and charge-sheet was filed. The trial court initially rejected the discharge application, but the High Court, in a revision under Section 482 CrPC, discharged the accused, holding that the words used did not amount to instigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, affirming the High Court's order. The Court held that the material on record did not show any instigation, goading, or solicitation by the respondents to commit suicide. Relying on precedents such as Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, and Sanju v. State of M.P., the Court observed that mere abusive words, even if insulting, are not sufficient to constitute abetment unless they are reasonably capable of suggesting an intent to cause suicide. The suicide was not the direct result of the respondents' conduct, and there was no proximate link. The Court also noted that the second respondent had passed away during the appeal, so the appeal abated against him. The judgments cited by the State, including Soma Chakravarty and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, were distinguished as they dealt with the power to frame charges, but here the material did not make out a prima facie case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Instigation - Mere abusive words like 'call-girl' without goading or solicitation to commit suicide do not constitute instigation - The court held that the utterances of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, though insulting, were not reasonably capable of suggesting an intent to cause suicide, and there was no proximate link between the incident and the suicide (Paras 11-13). B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charge - Prima Facie Case - Section 227 CrPC - The court has power to sift evidence to determine whether a prima facie case exists - Applying the test from Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, the court found no material to frame charge under Section 306/34 IPC (Paras 15-16). C) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Proximity - Section 306 IPC - The suicide must be the direct result of the accused's conduct - Where the suicide occurred one day after the alleged incident, and there was no continued course of conduct leaving the deceased with no option, no instigation can be inferred (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether calling a woman a 'call-girl' and refusing marriage amounts to abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The High Court's order discharging the respondents-accused from the charge under Section 306/34 IPC is upheld. The appeal stands abated against respondent No. 2 who passed away during pendency.
Law Points
- Abetment of suicide requires instigation
- goading
- or solicitation
- mere abusive words without intent to cause suicide do not constitute abetment
- suicide must be proximate and direct result of accused's conduct
- at framing stage
- court can sift evidence to determine prima facie case
