The Supreme Court on Friday emphasized that the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) should not be applied mechanically or as a means to placate the emotions of grieving family members of the deceased.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and K. V. Viswanathan stressed the need to sensitize investigative agencies to prevent the misuse of this legal provision through untenable prosecutions.
“Section 306 IPC is often invoked casually and too readily by the police,” the bench observed. “While genuine cases that meet the threshold must be pursued, the provision should not be misused merely to soothe the immediate grief of the deceased’s family.”
The court highlighted that the conduct of the accused and the deceased, along with their interactions and conversations before the death, must be assessed practically and not in isolation from the realities of daily life.
“Exaggerated language or hyperbolic exchanges, without substantive evidence, should not be elevated to the level of instigation to commit suicide,” the bench clarified.
The court further urged trial courts to exercise “great caution and circumspection” and to avoid a “play-it-safe” approach by framing charges mechanically, even in cases where investigating agencies fail to meet the criteria under Section 306 IPC.
The judgment arose from a plea filed by Mahendra Awase challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had rejected his request for discharge from charges under Section 306 IPC.
Case records revealed that the deceased had left a suicide note alleging harassment by Awase over loan repayment. Witness statements indicated the deceased had been distressed by this alleged harassment.
The Supreme Court clarified that for a case to fall under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of active involvement by the accused, such as instigation or facilitating the suicide.
The bench found no grounds to charge Awase under Section 306 IPC. “The suicide note indicates that the appellant was seeking repayment of a loan guaranteed by the deceased. Performing his professional duty of recovering outstanding dues on behalf of his employer cannot be equated with instigation to commit suicide,” the court said.
The bench also noted that transcripts of interactions between the appellant and the deceased did not suggest any intent to provoke the suicide.
“It cannot be concluded that the appellant created circumstances leaving the deceased with no alternative but to take his own life,” the court remarked.
The apex court pointed out that the First Information Report (FIR) in the case was filed after an unusual delay of over two months, raising further doubts about the allegations.
