In a nuanced judgment distinguishing between emotional distress and criminal instigation, the Gauhati High Court has set aside the cognizance taken under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) against a man accused in a suicide case. However, the Court upheld the charges under Section 376 (Rape) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as the victim was a minor when the sexual relationship allegedly occurred.

The case, Hussain Md. Rijuan v. The State of Assam, originated from a tragic incident where a 19-year-old girl committed suicide. Her father lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioner (accused) had been in a relationship with his daughter for two years on the pretext of marriage and had established physical relations with her.

The breaking point allegedly occurred two days before the suicide, when the accused refused to marry the deceased via WhatsApp messages, revealing he was going to marry someone else. Distraught by this rejection, the girl took her own life.

The Trial Court took cognizance of offenses under:

Section 306 IPC (Abetment of Suicide)
Section 376 IPC (Rape)
Section 417 IPC (Cheating)
Section 6 of the POCSO Act (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault)

Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, presiding over the single bench, analyzed the essential ingredients of "Abetment" under Section 107 IPC. The Court observed that for a charge under Section 306 to stand, there must be:

Instigation: Active suggestion or stimulation to do the act.
Mens Rea: A clear intention on the part of the accused to push the deceased to the point of no return.

The Court noted that a mere refusal to marry, or the fallout of a love affair, does not automatically amount to "instigation." The judge remarked:

"Other than the fact that the Petitioner refused to marry the deceased girl... no other vital material could be found which could prima facie bring the case under the purview of Section 107 IPC... The element of conspiracy along with other person/s to commit suicide was also absent."

The Court emphasized that human behavioral history must be considered. While the deceased was undoubtedly depressed due to the rejection, the accused's actions—while morally questionable (boasting about sexual triumphs)—did not legally constitute a continuous harassment or a positive act intended to drive her to suicide.

While the petitioner secured relief on the suicide charge, the Court refused to quash the sexual assault charges.

The defense argued that the FIR used the vague term "physical relations," which shouldn't automatically imply rape. The Court rejected this, noting that in common vernacular, the term clearly denotes a sexual relationship.

Crucially, the investigation revealed that while the victim was 19 at the time of her death, the relationship had spanned the previous two years. This placed her age under 18 during the period when the sexual acts allegedly took place. Consequently, the consent of a minor is invalid in the eyes of the law, attracting Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC.

This ruling reinforces a growing judicial trend in India where Courts are cautious about treating every suicide resulting from a failed relationship as a criminal abetment case. It draws a clear line:

Emotional Heartbreak ≠ Criminal Abetment: A "lovers' tiff" or a broken promise of marriage is a civil or social issue, not necessarily a criminal cause for suicide.
Statutory Protection for Minors: Regardless of the consensual nature of a teenage relationship, if sexual acts occur while the girl is a minor, the strict liability under POCSO continues to apply, irrespective of subsequent events.