In a significant judgment that clarifies the boundaries of criminal liability in emotional tragedies, the Kerala High Court has ruled that telling someone to "go and die" during a heated argument does not automatically amount to the offence of 'Abetment of Suicide.'

The Court emphasized that for a person to be held responsible for someone else's suicide, there must be a clear "intention" to cause that death. Words spoken in a fit of anger or during a "heat of passion" do not carry the specific criminal intent required to charge a person with a crime as serious as abetment.

The case, Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala, arose from a tragic incident in Kasaragod in September 2023. The petitioner, Safwan Adhur, was the first accused in a case involving the death of a woman with whom he allegedly had an extra-marital relationship.

According to the prosecution, the woman discovered that Safwan was planning to marry another person. Distressed by this news, she confronted him over the phone. During the ensuing heated exchange, Safwan reportedly scolded her and uttered the words, "go away and die."

Tragically, shortly after this phone call, the woman jumped into a well along with her five-and-a-half-year-old daughter. Both lost their lives. The local police subsequently charged Safwan under Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) and Section 204 (Destruction of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Initially, Safwan approached the Sessions Court in Kasaragod seeking a 'discharge'—a legal process where an accused asks the court to drop the charges because there isn't enough evidence to go to trial. However, the Sessions Judge rejected his plea, prompting him to file a revision petition before the High Court.

The core of the legal battle rested on the definition of "Abetment" under Indian law. Under Section 306 of the IPC, if a person commits suicide, whoever "abets" the commission of that suicide can be punished with up to 10 years in prison.

However, "abetment" is not just any act that leads to a result. Under Section 107 of the IPC, abetment requires:

Instigation: Goading, urging, or provoking someone to do a specific act.
Conspiracy: Planning with others to make the act happen.
Intentional Aid: Helping the person carry out the act.

The High Court had to decide: Did Safwan’s angry outburst count as "instigation"?

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, while presiding over the case, noted that human emotions are complex, especially during quarrels. The Court observed that what matters in the eyes of the law is not how the victim felt, but what the accused intended.

"What is important is the intention of the accused and not what is felt by the deceased," the Court remarked.

The Judge explained that in the heat of a quarrel, people often say things they do not mean. These are "casual remarks" rather than a calculated attempt to drive someone to end their life. The Court pointed out that for a person to be guilty of instigation, there must be mens rea—a Latin legal term meaning a "guilty mind" or a specific intention to cause a crime.

To reach its conclusion, the High Court relied on several landmark judgments from the Supreme Court of India:

Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. (2002): In this famous case, the Supreme Court had dealt with almost identical facts where an accused told the deceased to "go and die." The Apex Court had ruled that such words, uttered in a quarrel or a spur-of-the-moment fit of anger, cannot be taken as "instigation" because there is no real intention behind them.
Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. (1995): Here, the Supreme Court noted that words used in the heat of the moment between quarreling people are often "casual in nature" and do not amount to abetment.
Cyriac v. S.I. of Police (2005): The Kerala High Court itself had previously held that even if an accused person’s conduct is insulting or abusive, it isn't enough for a conviction unless it is shown that the accused intended the consequence of suicide.

One of the most sensitive parts of the judgment addressed the mental state of the victim. The Court noted that a "fatal impulse" or an "ill-fated thought" by a deceased person—no matter how tragic—cannot be blamed on another person unless that person specifically intended to cause it.

The Court held that the law cannot hold an individual responsible for the "frail psychology" of another person. If an individual is particularly sensitive or emotionally vulnerable and takes a drastic step after a common argument, the other party cannot be sent to jail for abetment unless they actively pushed the person toward that specific end.

The High Court found that the words "go away and die" were spoken during a wordy altercation and in a "heat of passion." There was no evidence to suggest that Safwan actually wanted the woman to commit suicide or that he had planned to instigate her.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the Sessions Court’s order. Justice Kumar ruled that the allegations did not satisfy the requirements of Section 306 of the IPC. Since the main charge of abetment failed, the secondary charge of destroying evidence (Section 204) also fell apart.

The petitioner was officially discharged from the case.

This ruling is a vital reminder of the high standard of proof required in criminal law. While the loss of two lives—including that of a young child—is undoubtedly a tragedy, the Court reaffirmed that criminal law must remain objective.

By distinguishing between "angry outbursts" and "intentional instigation," the Court protected the principle that a person should not be held criminally liable for the unpredictable emotional reactions of others during routine human conflicts. It clarifies for police and lower courts that a "suicide note" or a "last word" isn't enough to prove a crime—one must look at the context and the intent of the person speaking.

Case Title: Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala
Case Number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 1224 OF 2025
Judge: Justice C. Pratheep Kumar
Representing the Petitioner: Advocates R. Anas Muhammed Shamnad, C.C. Anoop, Saleek C.A., Thareek T.S., and Hamdan Mansoor K.
Representing the State: Sr. Public Prosecutor A. Vipin Narayan