The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh examined whether the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code were made out against the appellant, a Deputy Conservator of Forests, who was accused of abetting the suicide of a Forest Range Officer posted at Harisal Range. The deceased shot herself dead on 25 March 2021, leaving three suicide notes addressed to the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, her mother, and her husband. The notes alleged that the appellant repeatedly reprimanded and suspended her, rejected her leave applications, forced her to trek for three consecutive days while she was pregnant—resulting in a miscarriage—and behaved inappropriately. The appellant was also accused of getting an FIR registered against her under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at the behest of Manisha Uike.
The charge of causing miscarriage under Section 312 of the IPC had already been quashed by the Bombay High Court. However, charges under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC continued. The Additional Sessions Judge at Achalpur dismissed the appellant’s application for discharge, and the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court affirmed that order in revision, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court referred to the statutory framework, noting that abetment under Section 306 must be read with Section 107 of the IPC, which requires three essentials: (i) direct or indirect instigation; (2) such instigation must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide; and (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide. The bench emphasized that instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage a person to do an act, and that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion, without intending the consequences to follow, cannot be said to constitute instigation.
Relying on precedent, the Court cited Ude Singh v State of Haryana to clarify the meaning of instigation, Prakash v State of Maharashtra to stress the need for a direct or indirect act contributing to the suicide with proximate instigation and clear mens rea, and Madan Mohan Singh v State of Gujarat, where a suicide note blaming an employer was held insufficient absent proof that the accused intended or knew the deceased would take their life as a result of the actions. The bench also relied heavily on its recent decision in Abhinav Mohan Delkar v State of Maharashtra, which held that to attract the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, there must be a proximate prior act clearly showing that the suicide was the direct consequence of continuous harassment, with the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to take their own life.
The Court found that none of the incidents alleged in the suicide note occurred in close proximity to the suicide on 25 March 2021. The alleged miscarriage, reprimands, suspensions, rejection of leave applications, forced trek, and registration of the FIR under the SC/ST Act were not shown to be proximate acts immediately preceding the suicide. There was no material on record indicating a conscious intention by the appellant to drive the deceased to take her own life. The suicide note’s allegation that the appellant was ‘solely responsible’ for her death was deemed insufficient without proof of proximate instigation and mens rea.
The prosecution’s reliance on a 2018 FIR lodged by a peon alleging cruel behaviour by the appellant was also considered too remote in time to establish proximity to the 2021 suicide. The Court observed that ordinary administrative directions, disciplinary supervision, adverse remarks on official performance, or even stern behaviour by a superior officer cannot, by themselves, be treated as abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC unless accompanied by additional material showing a conscious intention to drive the subordinate to suicide.
Accordingly, the bench set aside the orders of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) and the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, and allowed the appellant’s application for discharge. The Court concluded that the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC were not made out against the appellant.