Mere naming in a suicide note does not establish abetment without a live, proximate nexus.

On 7 October 2024, Ravindra Deshmukh died by suicide by shooting himself at his residence. A six-page suicide note was recovered during inquest proceedings, alleging that several persons, including Deepak Shivhare, Prakash Shivhare and Ranjeet Singh, had subjected him to sustained mental harassment, blackmail, intimidation and financial extortion, involving alleged payments exceeding ₹80,00,000.

An FIR was registered on 8 October 2024 and, after investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 11 January 2025. The First Additional Sessions Judge, Betul, framed charges against the accused-respondents under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in revision, set aside the order framing charges and discharged the accused, holding that the material did not disclose instigation, intentional abetment, requisite mens rea or a proximate nexus with the suicide. Kiran Deshmukh, the deceased’s wife, challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

Whether the High Court exceeded the permissible scope of revisional scrutiny by evaluating the prosecution material and effectively conducting a mini-trial while setting aside the order framing charges.

Whether the suicide note and other material disclosed, even prima facie, the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS against the accused-respondents.

Whether the alleged acts of extortion, intimidation and harassment, the last of which allegedly occurred nearly two months before the suicide, had a live and proximate nexus with Ravindra’s suicide.

The Court applied Section 108 of the BNS, which penalises abetment of suicide, read with Section 3(5) concerning acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.

Abetment of suicide requires material disclosing instigation, intentional aid or assistance, the requisite mens rea, and a live and proximate causal nexus between the accused’s conduct and the suicide.

Mere prior harassment, general allegations or naming a person in a suicide note is insufficient unless supported by specific acts demonstrating proximate instigation or intentional assistance.

The High Court had relied on Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand and Prakash v. State of Maharashtra in assessing the requirements of mens rea, active participation and proximate nexus.

At the stage of framing charges, the court must determine whether the prosecution material discloses sufficient ground to proceed; however, material that does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence cannot sustain a charge.

The Court held that the last specific act attributed to the accused-respondents was the alleged payment of ₹40,00,000 on 15 August 2024, whereas Ravindra committed suicide on 7 October 2024. No material indicated any intervening threat, demand, intimidation, harassment, instigation or intentional assistance during this period.

The suicide note made vague and omnibus allegations, failed to attribute specific acts to the accused-respondents, and did not establish how their conduct proximately led to the suicide.

The Court also noted that Ravindra had not reported the alleged extortion or sought legal intervention, and that the investigating agency had not verified the alleged payments or Ravindra’s capacity to make them; these circumstances weakened the prosecution’s foundational case, although the absence of a complaint was not treated as independently determinative.

Accordingly, even if the allegations were accepted at their highest, they did not disclose the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS.

The High Court had therefore committed no error in setting aside the order framing charges and discharging Deepak Shivhare, Prakash Shivhare and Ranjeet Singh.

The High Court’s judgment dated 11 July 2025 was affirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.