Section 306 IPC requires intentional, proximate instigation or aid to establish abetment of suicide.

The prosecution alleged that accused No. 1, the deceased Sanju Kumar’s wife, had an illicit relationship with accused No. 2 and subjected Sanju Kumar to abuse and assault, leading him to die by suicide on 3 November 2020.

The complainant, the deceased’s brother, lodged the complaint; the accused were charged under Sections 306 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Sessions Court acquitted them on 19 August 2025. The complainant appealed, challenging the acquittal

1. Whether the Sessions Court’s acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and should be interfered with on appeal

2. Whether the evidence established abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC

3. Whether the evidence established the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act

Section 306 of the IPC requires proof of suicide and abetment within Section 107, including instigation, conspiracy accompanied by an act or illegal omission, or intentional aid.

The court stated that abetment to suicide requires a positive, direct or indirect act, accompanied by the requisite mens rea, and sufficiently connected to the suicide.

Relying on S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190, it reiterated the need to establish the elements of abetment.

Under Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible; the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

The court also held that Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was not attracted absent evidence that the offence was committed on the basis of the victim’s caste identity, and noted that the deceased and accused No. 1 belonged to the same caste.

The court found that the complainant was the deceased’s brother and that their relationship with accused No. 1 was strained in the context of a land dispute; the complainant had also admitted that accused No. 1 had filed a complaint against him and his family.

The evidence did not establish the alleged illicit relationship and cruelty with sufficient reliability: one witness’s account was hearsay, another was treated as hostile, and the daughter’s testimony included admissions limiting her knowledge of the alleged relationship.

The court concluded that the evidence did not show the required instigation, intentional aid, or mens rea to connect the accused to the suicide.

Nor was there separate evidence that the alleged offence was committed because of the deceased’s caste identity.

Given the trial court’s assessment of the evidence and the principles governing appeals against acquittal, the court found no basis to interfere.

It confirmed the Sessions Court’s judgment and order acquitting accused Nos. 1 to 3 of the offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act; pending applications, if any, were disposed of.