Section 306 IPC conviction requires positive instigation and clear mens rea; mere harassment or habitual drinking is insufficient.

The appellant married the deceased, Kiran, in 1997

After two years of marriage, the appellant allegedly became an alcoholic and began physically assaulting and torturing the deceased

On 26.09.2005, the deceased committed suicide by consuming an organic phosphorous compound pesticide

The appellant was subsequently charged under Section 306 of the IPC.

On 04.03.2008, the 2nd Additional Session Judge, Baloda Bazar, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged this judgment, contending that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC

1. Whether the appellant’s conduct of habitual intoxication and physical assault amounted to "instigation" or "abetment" as defined under Section 107 of the IPC to justify a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC.

The court primarily applied Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) and Section 107 (Definition of abetment) of the IPC

It relied on the "instigation" test established in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001), which defines instigation as goading or provoking an act with reasonable certainty of the consequence

The court further applied the principles from M. Mohan v. State (2011) and Kashibai v. State of Karnataka (2023), which require evidence of a "positive act" and a clear mens rea to push the deceased into a position where suicide is the only option

Additionally, the court noted that under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the mere fact of suicide within seven years of marriage is insufficient to raise a presumption of abetment without proof of cruelty specifically linked to the suicide

The court evaluated the testimony of the deceased’s family members (PW-1, PW-2, PW-8, and PW-10), who confirmed the appellant was a habitual drinker who frequently beat the deceased

However, the court found that these actions, while regrettable, did not fulfill the requirements of Section 107 of the IPC

It reasoned that for a conviction under Section 306, there must be a "direct act" or "active act" by the accused that reflects an intention to provoke suicide

The court observed that the prosecution failed to provide clinching or admissible evidence showing that the appellant’s harassment was intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide

Distinguishing between general domestic discord and legal abetment, the court held that without evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, the conviction could not be sustained despite the evidence of physical harassment

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.03.2008, and acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 306 of the IPC

The appellant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- pursuant to Section 481 of the BNSS 2023 to remain effective for six months