The Supreme Court, while quashing charges of abetment of suicide against the appellants, reiterated that for an offense under Section 306 IPC to be established, the alleged harassment must be of such a nature that it leaves the victim with no alternative but to end their life. Additionally, the accused’s intention to aid or abet the suicide must be proven.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar, and K.V. Viswanathan relied on multiple precedents, including Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2010) 8 SCC 628. The Court observed:
“To constitute an offense under Section 306 IPC, there must be specific abetment as contemplated under Section 107 IPC, with an intention to instigate or aid the commission of suicide. Furthermore, the alleged harassment should have left the victim with no other option but to take their own life, and there must be direct or indirect acts of incitement.”
Background of the Case
The case arose from a suspected relationship between the son of the first appellant, Ziaul Rahman (since deceased), and the complainant’s cousin, Tanu (since deceased). The first appellant had lodged an FIR alleging that Tanu’s relatives had assaulted his son, leading to his death.
Following this incident, the appellants allegedly humiliated and harassed Tanu, blaming her for their son’s death, which, according to the complainant, led to her suicide. Based on this, a case for abetment of suicide was registered against the appellants.
The appellants approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings. However, the High Court refused, holding that there was a proximate link between the accused’s actions and the suicide. It also noted that Tanu was hypersensitive, depressed, and humiliated, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Findings of the Supreme Court
At the outset, the Supreme Court noted that the charge sheet was based solely on the complainant’s statements, without any further investigative analysis. The Court observed that the investigation had failed to explore other possible causes of suicide and had treated the complainant’s version as absolute truth.
“We are left with only the one-sided version of the complainant. Was there anything more sinister? Even if it was suicide, what was the real cause? Was Tanu distraught over Ziaul Rahman’s death? Considering the disapproval of their relationship, was there any instigation from another quarter? We have no answers today.”
The Court further noted that the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide were absent in the charge sheet. It held that mere verbal exchanges or humiliation by the appellants could not be considered sufficient to drive the deceased to suicide.
“The surrounding circumstances, particularly the prior FIR lodged by the first appellant against Tanu’s family for the death of his son, indicate an element of desperation on the part of the complainant to implicate the appellants.”
In light of these findings, the Court ruled that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and accordingly quashed them.
Order for Special Investigation Team (SIT) Probe
Despite quashing the proceedings, the Court underscored the need for a reinvestigation into the unnatural death of the deceased. It directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by an officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police.
The SIT was authorized to treat the FIR (Crime No. 367/2022, PS Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur) as one concerning an unnatural death and to re-register the FIR if deemed appropriate. The Court also directed that the reinvestigation report be submitted in a sealed cover within two months.
“The Director General of Police, Law and Order, State of Uttar Pradesh, is directed to constitute an SIT to investigate the unnatural death of Tanu. The SIT shall submit its reinvestigation report before this Court in a sealed cover within two months.”
Case Details:
Case Name: Ayyub v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Diary No.: 21115/2024
