Abetment of Suicide Case: Supreme Court Restores Criminal Proceedings Against Accused

The case of Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab and Others is a significant ruling on the interpretation of abetment of suicide under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolves around a tragic incident where a woman, Nilu, along with her two minor children, ended their lives by jumping in front of a moving train. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether criminal proceedings against the accused should continue after being quashed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Court’s decision reinstated the criminal charges, ensuring that the accused undergo trial.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Rajeev Kourav, filed a complaint against his elder brother’s wife (Respondent No.1) and her two brothers (Respondents Nos. 2 and 3). He accused them of persistently harassing his wife, Nilu, which he claimed drove her to commit suicide along with their two children. According to the complaint, Respondent No.1 was dissatisfied with the land that had been allotted to her husband and frequently quarreled with the deceased over property disputes. The appellant also alleged that Respondent No.1 had threatened to set herself and her children on fire and implicate his family in a criminal case. These disputes allegedly escalated into a physical assault on Nilu, following which she took the extreme step of taking her own life along with her children.

Legal Proceedings and High Court’s Decision

An FIR (No. 285 of 2014) was registered on May 8, 2014, at the Kareli Police Station, District Narsinghpur. Upon investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused. However, Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings. They contended that the allegations against them did not satisfy the ingredients required to establish the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

The High Court, after examining the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, concluded that there was no material evidence to establish that the accused had directly instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The Court observed:

“The allegations against the accused at the most constitute an offence under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation. Read as a whole, the allegations made against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not make out an offence under Section 306 IPC.”

Consequently, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, leading to the appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Rajeev Kourav)

The appellant argued that the accused had consistently harassed his wife and mentally tortured her, which drove her to suicide.
He relied on the statement of a witness who testified that Nilu had confided in him about her inability to bear the torture any longer.
He contended that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings as there was sufficient prima facie evidence for a full-fledged trial.

Arguments of the Respondents (Accused)

The accused contended that they had no role in instigating the deceased to take her own life and that mere harassment does not constitute abetment of suicide.
They argued that there was no suicide note or any direct evidence proving that they incited or provoked the deceased to take the extreme step.
They maintained that the allegations were a result of domestic disputes and family conflicts rather than any criminal intent.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

A bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Deepak Gupta examined the case and overturned the High Court’s ruling, reinstating the criminal proceedings. The Court made the following key observations:

“Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC being wholly inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Court, while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC.”

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had erred in evaluating the evidence at the quashing stage, emphasizing that if a prima facie case is made out, the matter should go to trial, where the accused will have a fair opportunity to prove their innocence.

The Court further stated:

“It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defense cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings.”

Analysis of Abetment Under Section 306 IPC

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that to establish an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be:

A clear instigation, provocation, or direct act that drives the victim to suicide.
An act of harassment that is so severe that the victim is left with no option but to take their own life.
Evidence that the accused played an active role in facilitating the suicide.

The Court ruled that mere harassment or quarrels in a domestic setting do not automatically amount to abetment unless it can be proved that the accused had intended for the victim to commit suicide.

Conclusion and Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving abetment of suicide. It reinforces the principle that courts should exercise extreme caution when quashing criminal proceedings at the initial stage. The decision ensures that serious allegations are not dismissed prematurely but are tested through a full-fledged trial.

The judgment is also a reminder that while family disputes are common, they should not escalate to levels that lead to irreversible consequences. The legal system must ensure that victims of harassment receive justice while also safeguarding the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

Petitioner Name: Rajeev Kourav.
Respondent Name: Baisahab and Others.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Deepak Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 11-02-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rajeev Kourav vs Baisahab and Others Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-02-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Suicide Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category