Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District

,

Read Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/qjdn/

Citation: 2025 INSC 607
Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 4268-4269 of 2024
Judges: Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Date of Judgment: April 30, 2025

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Proximity and Instigation – Quashing of Chargesheet.

The appellants challenged the Madras High Court’s dismissal of their Section 482 CrPC petitions to quash a chargesheet under Section 306 IPC, alleging abetment of suicide based on a suicide note and harassment claims. The Supreme Court held that the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC, requiring active instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding, were not fulfilled. The alleged harassment occurred a month prior to the suicide, with no subsequent contact or proximate act of instigation by the appellants. The suicide note did not establish mens rea or direct inducement. Relying on precedents like Ude Singh v. State of Haryana and M. Arjunan v. State, the Court found the allegations insufficient to constitute abetment, as mere harassment or insults, absent continuous conduct or intent to provoke suicide, do not suffice. Continuation of proceedings was deemed an abuse of process.

Appeals allowed, High Court judgment and chargesheet quashed.

Facts

The appellants challenged the Madras High Court’s judgment (dated 13.04.2018) dismissing their petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash a chargesheet filed against them under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide). The case stemmed from the suicide of Dinesh, who married Accused No. 7 (Pushpakalashree) on 15.09.2013. Post-marriage, their relationship deteriorated. On 10.11.2013, Accused Nos. 1 to 6 allegedly visited Dinesh’s residence, abused him and his family, insulted him by calling him impotent, and threatened a dowry case. Accused No. 7 left with them. A suicide note, found in torn diary pages, alleged harassment by Accused Nos. 1 to 7 from 10.11.2013 to 09.12.2013, leading to Dinesh’s suicide on 09.12.2013. Initially registered under Section 174 CrPC, the case was altered to Section 306 IPC after the note’s discovery. The appellants argued the note lacked forensic verification, the harassment was not proximate to the suicide, and the ingredients of Section 306 IPC were not met.

Issues

  1. Whether the allegations and suicide note established the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
  2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants constituted an abuse of process.

Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and set aside the chargesheet and proceedings in S.C. No. 9 of 2016.

Reasoning

The Court analyzed the suicide note and found no evidence of continuous harassment or instigation after 11.11.2013, noting a month-long gap until the suicide on 09.12.2013. Section 306 IPC requires abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, involving instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. The Court held that mere insults or harassment, absent direct or proximate acts of incitement, do not constitute abetment. The note did not demonstrate mens rea or active inducement by the appellants. Citing precedents like Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 and M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 the Court emphasized that abetment requires proof of intentional acts compelling suicide, which was absent here. The lack of contact post-11.11.2013 and the note’s unverifiable nature further weakened the prosecution’s case. Continuing the proceedings was deemed an abuse of process, warranting quashing under the Court’s inherent powers.

Disposition

Appeals allowed. High Court judgment dated 13.04.2018 and proceedings in S.C. No. 9 of 2016 quashed. Pending applications disposed of.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

  1. What was the primary legal issue in the case of Shenbagavalli and Ors. v. The Inspector of Police? a) Validity of the marriage between Dinesh and Accused No. 7 b) Whether the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC were fulfilled c) Legality of the dowry threats made by the accused d) Admissibility of the suicide note as evidence Answer: b) Whether the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC were fulfilled
  2. Under which section of the CrPC did the appellants file petitions to quash the chargesheet? a) Section 173 b) Section 482 c) Section 309 d) Section 174 Answer: b) Section 482
  3. What was the initial section under which the case was registered by the police? a) Section 306 IPC b) Section 498A IPC c) Section 174 CrPC d) Section 107 IPC Answer: c) Section 174 CrPC
  4. What was the key reason the Supreme Court quashed the chargesheet? a) Lack of forensic evidence confirming the suicide note’s authenticity b) Absence of proximate instigation or continuous harassment leading to the suicide c) Invalidity of the marriage between the deceased and Accused No. 7 d) Procedural errors in the investigation Answer: b) Absence of proximate instigation or continuous harassment leading to the suicide
  5. Which of the following precedents was NOT relied upon by the appellants? a) Mahendra Singh and Another v. State of M.P. b) S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another c) Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. d) Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another Answer: d) Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another
  6. What was the time gap between the alleged harassment incident and the suicide? a) One week b) Nearly one month c) Two months d) Three days Answer: b) Nearly one month
  7. According to the Supreme Court, what is a necessary ingredient for abetment under Section 306 IPC? a) Financial distress caused by the accused b) Intentional instigation or aiding of the suicide c) Public defamation of the deceased d) Emotional sensitivity of the deceased Answer: b) Intentional instigation or aiding of the suicide
  8. What did the suicide note primarily attribute the deceased’s suicide to? a) Financial disputes with the accused b) Failure of the marriage and harassment by the accused c) Professional failures d) Health issues Answer: b) Failure of the marriage and harassment by the accused
  9. What was the Supreme Court’s rationale for considering the continuation of proceedings an abuse of process? a) The suicide note was forged b) The essential elements of Section 306 IPC were not fulfilled c) The accused were not properly identified d) The investigation was biased Answer: b) The essential elements of Section 306 IPC were not fulfilled
  10. Which court initially dismissed the appellants’ petitions to quash the chargesheet? a) Supreme Court of India b) Madras High Court c) Kancheepuram Sessions Court d) Tamil Nadu District Court Answer: b) Madras High Court

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

  1. What was the main allegation against the appellants in this case? The appellants (Accused Nos. 1 to 7) were alleged to have harassed the deceased, Dinesh, by abusing him, calling him impotent, and threatening a dowry case, which reportedly led to his suicide on 09.12.2013. The allegations were primarily based on a suicide note found in torn diary pages.
  2. Why did the Supreme Court quash the chargesheet under Section 306 IPC? The Supreme Court quashed the chargesheet because the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, as defined by Section 107 IPC, were not fulfilled. There was no evidence of proximate or continuous instigation, harassment, or intentional acts by the appellants that compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The harassment incident occurred a month prior, with no subsequent contact.
  3. What role did the suicide note play in the case? The suicide note, found in torn diary pages, formed the foundation of the prosecution’s case, alleging harassment by the appellants. However, the Supreme Court noted its lack of forensic verification and found that its contents did not establish direct instigation or mens rea, weakening the case for abetment.
  4. What are the essential ingredients for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC? As per the judgment, abetment under Section 306 IPC requires:
    • Instigation, urging, or provocation to commit suicide.
    • Engagement in a conspiracy to cause the act or an illegal omission pursuant to it.
    • Intentional aiding by an act or illegal omission. Additionally, there must be proof of the accused’s intent to instigate or aid the suicide, with actions proximate to the incident.
  5. Why was the time gap between the harassment and the suicide significant? The nearly one-month gap (from 10.11.2013 to 09.12.2013) between the alleged harassment and the suicide was significant because it indicated a lack of temporal proximity. The Court held that without evidence of continuous harassment or instigation close to the suicide, the appellants’ actions could not be deemed to have compelled the deceased to take his life.
  6. What precedents were cited to support the Supreme Court’s decision? The Court relied on:
    • Mahendra Singh and Another v. State of M.P. (1995)
    • S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another (2010)
    • Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. (2005)
    • Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others (2024)
    • Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010)
    • M. Arjunan v. State (2019)
    • Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana (2019)
    • Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2021)
  7. What did the Supreme Court say about the emotional sensitivity of the deceased? The Court noted that the deceased may have been emotionally sensitive, reacting disproportionately to the alleged insults. However, it held that such sensitivity alone does not make the appellants liable for abetment unless their actions were intended to provoke suicide and were proximate to the act.
  8. How did the Supreme Court justify using its inherent powers to quash the proceedings? The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, stating that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Since the allegations and evidence did not fulfill the requirements of Section 306 IPC, allowing the case to proceed would unjustly harass the appellants.
  9. What was the outcome of the appeals filed by the appellants? The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the Madras High Court’s judgment dated 13.04.2018, and set aside the chargesheet and proceedings in S.C. No. 9 of 2016 pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram.
  10. What was the significance of the lack of forensic evidence for the suicide note? While the appellants argued that the suicide note lacked forensic verification to confirm it was in the deceased’s handwriting, the Supreme Court did not solely rely on this. Instead, it emphasized that even if the note was authored by the deceased, its contents did not establish abetment, as they lacked evidence of direct instigation or intent.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,