A Section 306 conviction cannot stand without proof linking the accused’s acts to the suicide.

The victim, a widow, died by suicide after alleged abuse and threats concerning her relationship with appellant no. 1. The prosecution alleged that appellant no. 2 had repeatedly abused and threatened her, and that appellant no. 1 had sexually assaulted her. The Sessions Court convicted both appellants under Section 306 IPC and sentenced them to eight years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine; appellant no. 1 had been acquitted of the Section 376 IPC charge.

On appeal, the High Court considered conflicting accounts of the timing and manner of the alleged abuse, evidence concerning the victim’s mental state, and the unexhibited voice message said to have been sent by the victim.

1. Whether the evidence established that the appellants abetted the victim’s suicide so as to sustain their convictions under Section 306 IPC

2. Whether the contradictions in the prosecution evidence permitted a reliable finding that the alleged threats and abuse caused the victim to commit suicide

The Court applied Section 306 IPC, under which liability for abetment of suicide requires proof connecting the accused’s conduct to the suicide. In this case, the Court expressed the necessary connection as a direct link or causal connection between the alleged threats and the suicide.

Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was applied to require the appellants to remain bound by a bond for six months after their release.

The Court found material inconsistencies among the witnesses about whether the threats were made by telephone or in person and when they occurred: the accounts included a midnight call, an afternoon call, and an in-person altercation.

The Court also noted conflicting testimony about the victim’s depression and that the voice message allegedly explaining her decision to die had not been exhibited or transcribed at trial. In the absence of clear and consistent evidence establishing the timing, form, and effect of the alleged threats, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved the causal connection necessary to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC.

It allowed the appeal and directed that the appellants be released if not wanted in another case, subject to the applicable six-month bond requirement under Section 437A CrPC; connected applications were also disposed of.