Refusal to marry a long-term partner does not constitute instigation or abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

The State appealed against a judgment dated 23/01/2017 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 306 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the respondent and the deceased were in a love affair; however, following a quarrel three to four days prior to the incident, the respondent refused to marry her, allegedly compelling her to commit suicide by hanging on 06/02/2016.

During the trial, family members of the deceased (PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, and PW-9) testified that while the deceased’s family consented to the marriage, the respondent’s parents did not, leading to a dispute and the respondent’s eventual refusal.

A suicide letter written by the deceased was also recovered during the investigation.

1. Whether the respondent's refusal to marry the deceased, following a love affair, constitutes "abetment to suicide" under Section 306 of the IPC.

2. Whether the prosecution provided sufficient cogent evidence to establish that the respondent played an active role in instigating the deceased to commit suicide.

The court primarily applied Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) read with Section 107 (Abetment of a thing) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) 4 SCC 801, which clarifies that to attract Section 306, the accused must have played an active role through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.

The "instigation" must be of such a nature that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide.

The court found that while the prosecution established a romantic relationship and a subsequent refusal to marry, it failed to provide "cogent and reliable evidence" of instigation.

Testimony from the deceased’s mother (PW-9) revealed that the alleged refusal did not happen in her presence, and the deceased’s sister (PW-1) admitted the respondent simply stopped visiting the house after the dispute.

Crucially, the court noted that a "bare perusal" of the letter written by the deceased showed she did not blame the respondent for her death nor did she state she was committing suicide due to the refusal of marriage.

Applying the Mahendra Awase standard, the court reasoned that the respondent’s conduct did not constitute an "active role" or a "continued course of conduct" that left the deceased with no other option but suicide.

The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no illegality or propriety in the trial court's judgment.

The appeal was dismissed.