Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 960
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7957 of 2024)
JAYEDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH
CHAVDA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present criminal appeal arises from an order of
the Gujarat High Court, dated 09.05.2024, whereby
the Court rejected the Criminal Revision Application
No. 536 of 2024 filed by the appellants herein and
refused to discharge the appellants – accused from
offences punishable under sections 306, 498A and
1
114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2024.12.10
18:28:39 IST
Reason:
1
IPC
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 1 of 22
3. FIR No. 11206038210259 of 2021 dated 18.04.2021
was registered at the instance of the deceased’s father
against the appellants herein for offences under
sections 306, 498A, 114 of the IPC. It was alleged that
the appellant no.1 was married to the deceased – wife
in the year 2009. The deceased – wife was residing in
the matrimonial house with her in-laws, that is,
appellant nos. 2 and 3. For the first five years of the
marriage, no child was born to the couple. The
deceased – wife was subjected to physical and mental
harassment owing to this and thus returned to her
parental home. When she returned to her
matrimonial home on being convinced by her
parents, a son was born to the deceased in the next
few years. Around twelve months before the alleged
incident, the deceased had informed her father – the
informant that the appellant – accused had sold her
ornaments, given to her as streedhan during her
marriage, and whenever she demanded return of the
same, she was physically and mentally harassed. On
18.04.2021, the informant received information that
the deceased had committed suicide by hanging
herself. It is alleged that it was due to the physical
and mental harassment meted out by the appellant –
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 2 of 22
accused that the deceased was compelled to commit
suicide.
4. Appellants had earlier sought quashing of the FIR,
which petition was dismissed by the High Court and
even the Special Leave Petition before this Court
against the dismissal order of the High Court was
dismissed as withdrawn. The appellants thereafter
preferred an application seeking discharge under
2
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
on the ground that, prima facie , the ingredients for
the offence of abetment as provided under Section
107 of IPC are not made out against them. As per the
complaint the incident had taken place twelve
months ago. In the circumstances prima facie
instigation is not proved, therefore the offence as per
sections 306, 498A, 114 of the IPC are not made out
against them. The Sessions Court, vide order dated
28.02.2024, dismissed the discharge application
observing that in the circumstances of the case, it did
not seem just and proper to discharge or acquit any
accused person without recording evidence on all the
facts alleged.
2
CrPC
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 3 of 22
5. Appellants challenged the above order before the
High Court in a Criminal Revision Petition, wherein
the High Court in the impugned order has dismissed
the same and held that the appellants failed to bring
any material on record to prove that a prima facie
case is not made out to frame charges against them.
The Court, while dismissing the revision petition,
observed that at the stage of charge framing, the
Court's role is preliminary and limited to determining
whether a prima facie case exists. The test applied is
whether the materials presented by the prosecution,
taken at its face value, disclose ingredients of the
alleged offence. The Court is not required to evaluate
the probative value of the evidence or assess its
sufficiency for conviction. Instead, it only has to
consider whether there is a strong suspicion that the
accused might have committed the offence. This
suspicion must be based on credible material and not
on arbitrary conclusions. In the present case, witness
statements revealed that the deceased had faced
consistent physical and mental harassment by the
accused. The harassment included selling the
deceased's gold ornaments, which was her
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 4 of 22
streedhan , and torturing her when she demanded
their return. Witnesses also indicated that the
harassment intensified before her suicide,
particularly during a recent family event, and directly
contributed to her decision to end her life. These
statements provided sufficient material to establish
strong suspicion against the accused. The Court
further noted that the appellants failed to present any
material demonstrating that the allegations were
patently absurd or inherently improbable. As such,
the High Court upheld the decision of the Sessions
Court to frame charges under Sections 306 and 498A
of the IPC. The revision petition was dismissed, with
the High Court finding it devoid of merit and an
attempt to delay the trial.
6. Aggrieved by this judgment, the appellants are before
us on several grounds, inter alia, that the allegations
against them are completely baseless and they have
been roped in on concocted facts and there is nothing
on record to show how the appellants were even
remotely involved in abetting the suicide of the
deceased. Further, the appellants also claimed that
allegations made against them in the FIR as well as
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 5 of 22
statements brought on the record are vague and
general, and do not constitute an offence either under
section 306 or section 498A, IPC. And thus, there is
no prima facie case against them to condemn them to
face trial as the key ingredient of mens rea required
to make out a case under section 306, IPC is
absolutely lacking. That apart, from the alleged
selling of the ornaments there was no bone of
contention between the deceased and the appellants.
Having been together with appellant no. l for a
duration of almost twelve years there has been no
other complaint filed against any of the appellants
under section 498A, IPC nor is the claim made by the
informant that there was a constant demand for
dowry or that the appellant kept the deceased badly
or treated her badly. The only instance, as alleged in
the FIR, of harassment was allegedly met out to the
deceased when she inquired about getting back the
jewellery that was allegedly sold off by appellant no.1
and his family members which, admittedly, as per the
order of the Trial Court, occurred a year prior to
death of the deceased.
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 6 of 22
7. We have heard the learned counsels for parties and
have perused the material on record. We find that the
following issues arise for our consideration:
1. Whether a prima facie case under Section
498A, IPC is made out against the appellant
– accused?
2. Whether a prima facie case under Section
306, IPC is made out against the appellant –
accused?
3. Whether the appellant – accused can be
discharged for the offences under sections
306 and 498A, IPC?
8. Section 498A, IPC provides for punishment to the
husband or to relatives of the husband of a woman
subjecting the woman to cruelty. ‘Cruelty’ under this
provision has been explained to mean –
a. any willful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb
or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
b. harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 7 of 22
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.
3
9. This Court in the case of U. Suvetha v. State , laid
down the following ingredients to constitute the
offence under section 498-A, IPC:
i. The woman must be married;
ii. She must be subjected to cruelty or
harassment; and
iii. Such cruelty or harassment must have been
done either by husband of the woman or by
the relative of her husband.
10. This Court has also held in the judgment in the case
4
of State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao , that not
every kind of harassment would amount to ‘cruelty’
within the meaning of the provision, to constitute the
offence punishable therein. Every case has to be
analysed on its individual facts to assess whether the
act of the accused persons constitutes cruelty.
3
(2009) 6 SCC 757
4
(2008) 15 SCC 582
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 8 of 22
Further, cruelty can either be mental or physical, and
it is to be seen on the facts of each case.
11. From the above understanding of the provision, it is
evident that, ‘cruelty’ simpliciter is not enough to
constitute the offence, rather it must be done either
with the intention to cause grave injury or to drive
her to commit suicide or with intention to coercing
her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands.
12. In the present case, the deceased has committed
suicide after twelve years of marriage. In these twelve
years, the informant and other witnesses on record
have stated that the deceased had informed them on
multiple occasions that she was subjected to physical
and mental harassment by the appellants herein. It
has also been stated that once before she had
returned to her parental home owing to the alleged
cruelty and was later sent back to her matrimonial
house. Deceased’s father, who is the informant, has
also stated that around twelve months prior to her
death, the appellants had sold the deceased’s
streedhan and had tortured her when she demanded
them back. The same has also been stated by her
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 9 of 22
relatives who have been examined by the
Investigating Officer during investigation.
13. The appellants’ argument that the deceased had not
made a single complaint for cruelty or harassment
against the appellants in the twelve years of marriage
cannot be sustained. Merely because she did not file
any complaint for twelve years does not guarantee
that there was no instance of cruelty or harassment.
14. Further, the argument that ingredients of section
498A, IPC are not made as the allegations made
therein are general and vague, also does not
strengthen the case of the appellants as the
allegations, with specific, instances stated by the
informant and other witnesses prima facie constitute
a case for offence under section 498-A, IPC. From a
perusal of the FIR, findings of the Investigating
Officer in the chargesheet as well as the statements
of the deceased’s cousins recorded during
investigation prima facie indicate that the deceased
was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty
by her husband and the in-laws. There is also the
specific instance related to the alleged selling of the
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 10 of 22
gold ornaments and subsequent cruelty upon the
demand for return made by the deceased. A
preliminary analysis, as required during the stage of
charge-framing, points towards the probable
commission of the offence of cruelty as provided
under section 498-A, IPC.
15. Hence, the appellants cannot be discharged for
offence under section 498-A, IPC and should be
charged with and tried for the same.
16. Section 306 of the IPC provides for punishment for
the offence of abetment of suicide. It has to be read
with Section 107 of the IPC which defines the act of
‘abetment’. The provisions read as follows:
“306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
“107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets
the doing of a thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that
thing; or
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 11 of 22
Secondly.—Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.—A person who by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment
of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.
Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or
at the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby
facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.”
17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the
act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged
under this section, the prosecution must establish
that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by
the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of
the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the
IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 12 of 22
or encouraged the individual to commit suicide,
conspiring with others to ensure that the act was
carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to
act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own
life.
18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a
well-established legal principle that the presence of
clear mens rea —the intention to abet the act—is
essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient
to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The
prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct
action by the accused that led the deceased to take
his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot
simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident
and explicitly discernible. Without this, the
foundational requirement for establishing abetment
under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the
necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to
provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same
position was laid down by this Court in S.S.
5
Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan , wherein it was
observed that:
5
(2010) 12 SCC 190
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 13 of 22
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a positive
act on the part of the accused to instigate or
aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be sustained. The intention of the legislature
and the ratio of the cases decided by the
Supreme Court is clear that in order to
convict a person under Section 306IPC there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct
act which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide.”
19. To bring a conviction under section 306, IPC it is
necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or
push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires
certain such act, omission, creation of
circumstances, or words which would incite or
provoke another person to commit suicide. This
Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of
6
Chhattisgarh , defined the word “instigate” as
under:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.
To satisfy the requirement of instigation
6
(2001) 9 SCC 618
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 14 of 22
though it is not necessary that actual words
must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily
and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to
incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. The present one is not a
case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of
conduct created such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
20. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to
bring a case under Section 306, IPC are:
i. the abetment;
ii. the intention of the accused to aid or instigate
or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
21. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is
imperative that the accused intended by their act to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, in
cases of death of a wife, the Court must meticulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as
well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary
to determine whether the cruelty or harassment
inflicted on the victim left them with no other option
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 15 of 22
but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of
suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct
or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide.
Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to
establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be
evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely
linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or
drove the victim to commit suicide.
22. It is essential to establish that the death was a result
of suicide and that the accused actively abetted its
commission. This can involve instigating the victim
or engaging in specific actions that facilitated the act.
The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the
accused played a definitive role in the abetment.
Without clear evidence of an active role in provoking
or assisting the suicide, a conviction under Section
306 IPC cannot be sustained.
23. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated
through actions or behaviors of the accused that
directly contributed to the victim’s decision to take
their own life. Harassment, in itself, does not suffice
unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts of
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 16 of 22
incitement or facilitation. Furthermore, these actions
must be proximate to the time of the suicide,
showcasing a clear connection between the accused’s
behavior and the tragic outcome. It is only through
the establishment of this direct link that a conviction
under Section 306 IPC can be justified. The
prosecution bears the burden of proving this active
involvement to hold the accused accountable for the
alleged abetment of suicide. The same position has
been laid down by this court in several judgments,
such as:
7
i. M. Mohan v. State ;
ii. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of
8
West Bengal ;
9
iii. Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka .
24. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC,
there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts
of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide,
especially in the context of abetment, involves
complex attributes of human behavior and reactions,
7
(2011) 3 SCC 626
8
(2010) 1 SCC 707
9
(2007) SCC OnLine Kar 824
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 17 of 22
requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing
proof of the accused’s role in instigating the act. Mere
allegations of harassment are not enough unless the
accused’s actions were so compelling that the victim
perceived no alternative but to take their own life.
Such actions must also be proximate to the time of
the suicide. The Court examines whether the
accused’s conduct, including provoking, urging, or
tarnishing the victim’s self-esteem, created an
unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were
intended only to harass or express anger, they might
not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation.
Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts,
considering the accused’s intent and its impact on
the victim.
10
25. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana ,
held that to convict an accused under Section 306
IPC, the intent or mental state to commit the specific
crime must be evident when assessing culpability. It
was observed as under:
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide,
there must be a proof of direct or indirect
10
(2019) 17 SCC 301
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 18 of 22
act(s) of incitement to the commission of
suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the
question of cause of a suicide, particularly in
the context of an offence of abetment of
suicide, remains a vexed one, involving
multifaceted and complex attributes of
human behaviour and responses/reactions.
In the case of accusation for abetment of
suicide, the court would be looking for cogent
and convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. In
the case of suicide, mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another
person would not suffice unless there be
such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide; and
such an offending action ought to be
proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether
a person has abetted in the commission of
suicide by another or not, could only be
gathered from the facts and circumstances of
each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a
person has abetted commission of suicide by
another, the consideration would be if the
accused is guilty of the act of instigation of
the act of suicide. As explained and
reiterated by this Court in the decisions
abovereferred, instigation means to goad,
urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to
do an act. If the persons who committed
suicide had been hypersensitive and the
action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 19 of 22
person to commit suicide, it may not be safe
to hold the accused guilty of abetment of
suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous
course of conduct creates a situation which
leads the deceased perceiving no other
option except to commit suicide, the case
may fall within the four corners of Section
306IPC. If the accused plays an active role in
tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of
the victim, which eventually draws the victim
to commit suicide, the accused may be held
guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of
mens rea on the part of the accused in such
cases would be examined with reference to
the actual acts and deeds of the accused and
if the acts and deeds are only of such nature
where the accused intended nothing more
than harassment or snap show of anger, a
particular case may fall short of the offence
of abetment of suicide. However, if the
accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words or deeds until the
deceased reacted or was provoked, a
particular case may be that of abetment of
suicide. Such being the matter of delicate
analysis of human behaviour, each case is
required to be examined on its own facts,
while taking note of all the surrounding
factors having bearing on the actions and
psyche of the accused and the deceased.”
26. On a careful and close consideration of the facts and
the material on record in the present case and in light
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 20 of 22
of the law laid down by this Court regarding Section
306, IPC, there appears no proximate link between
the alleged facts, instances of harassment and her
subsequent death by hanging. The alleged incident of
selling of gold ornaments and subsequent physical
and mental harassment, as alleged, occurred almost
a year before the FIR was registered at the instance
of the father of the deceased. Even the statements of
the deceased’s cousins only mention instances which
occurred a year prior to the death of the deceased.
Further, selling of gold ornaments and the same was
followed by discord and harassment upon their
demand, even if true, do not reflect any intention to
instigate, incite or provoke the deceased to commit
suicide. Mere harassment and such issues between
the wife and her husband along with the in-laws do
not appear to create a scenario where she was left
with no option other than to end her life. There is,
therefore, absence of mens rea to instigate suicide of
the deceased persons. Therefore, , it
prima facie
appears that the appellants did not have the requisite
mens rea and neither did they commit any positive or
direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the
commission of suicide by the deceased.
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 21 of 22
27. Hence, the ingredients for the offence under Section
306, IPC are not made out even on a preliminary
analysis of the material on record. Therefore, they
cannot be charged under Section 306, IPC and thus
deserve to be discharged of the same.
28. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is
partly allowed, they are discharged from the charges
under Section 306 of the IPC, however the charge
under Section 498A of the IPC is upheld and the trial
under this provision shall proceed against them.
29. Pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 10, 2024
SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 22 of 22