Suicide and Abetment: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Alleged Mental Harassment

The case of State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu & Others revolved around the tragic suicide of a young woman and the question of whether her fiancé and his parents could be held criminally liable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court had to determine whether the remarks made by the accused, particularly calling the deceased a ‘call-girl,’ amounted to abetment of suicide.

Background of the Case

The deceased, a painter and artist, was engaged to the first respondent, Indrajit Kundu, who was also her English tutor. The prosecution alleged that the victim had visited Indrajit’s house on March 5, 2004, to finalize the date of their marriage. However, when she reached his home, his parents, Respondents 2 and 3, verbally abused her and called her a ‘call-girl,’ refusing to accept the marriage proposal.

The victim returned home in a mentally disturbed state and reportedly confided in her sister about the humiliation she faced. The following day, March 6, 2004, at around 1:00 PM, she died by suicide.

The police registered a case under Section 306 IPC based on the complaint lodged by her father. During the investigation, two suicide notes were recovered:

• One addressed to her family, mentioning the abusive remarks made by Indrajit’s parents.
• The second addressed to Indrajit, in which she accused his father of humiliating her and called Indrajit a ‘coward’ for not defending her.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The State of West Bengal, through its counsel, argued:

• The respondents’ conduct amounted to mental cruelty, which directly led to the victim’s suicide.
• The repeated humiliation by the respondents should be seen as instigation under Section 107 IPC, which defines abetment.
• The presence of suicide notes clearly implicated the accused, particularly Indrajit’s parents, who were responsible for the victim’s mental distress.
• The High Court erred in quashing the charges, as there was enough prima facie evidence to allow the trial to proceed.

Respondents’ Arguments

The accused, Indrajit Kundu and his parents, countered with the following arguments:

• While their words may have been harsh, they did not directly incite the victim to take her life.
• The suicide occurred one day after the alleged insult, which indicated that there was no immediate provocation.
• Under previous Supreme Court rulings, mere harsh words or verbal abuse do not constitute abetment of suicide unless there is a direct link between the act and the victim’s death.
• The High Court correctly ruled that calling someone a ‘call-girl’ is offensive but does not amount to ‘goading or solicitation’ necessary to prove abetment.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the case in light of established legal principles on abetment. It made the following key observations:

“The act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive, will not by itself suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the consequence of suicide.”

The Court relied on past rulings, including:

• Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1995), where the words ‘go and die’ spoken in anger were held insufficient to constitute abetment.
• Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001), where the Court stated that for abetment, the accused must have ‘instigated, goaded, or created circumstances’ that left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.
• Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002), where the accused told the deceased to ‘go and die,’ but the Court ruled that this did not amount to direct provocation.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings against the respondents. It ruled:

• There was no direct instigation or encouragement by the accused to commit suicide.
• The mere use of offensive language, while unacceptable, did not amount to abetment under Section 306 IPC.
• The prosecution failed to establish a causal link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide.
• The criminal charges against Indrajit Kundu and his parents were quashed.

Legal and Policy Implications

This judgment provides important clarity on abetment of suicide:

• Verbal abuse alone is not enough: Courts will not hold individuals criminally liable for suicide unless there is clear evidence of instigation.
• Timing matters: If there is a significant gap between the alleged provocation and the act of suicide, it weakens the claim of abetment.
• Suicide notes are not always conclusive: The presence of a suicide note mentioning the accused does not automatically establish criminal liability.
• High threshold for abetment: The ruling reinforces that abetment requires a direct act that leaves the victim with no alternative but suicide.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict reaffirms that while mental harassment and verbal insults are serious offenses, they do not automatically translate into abetment of suicide under the law. The judgment ensures that criminal liability is imposed only when there is clear evidence of intent to provoke suicide, preventing misuse of the law in emotionally charged cases.

Petitioner Name: State of West Bengal.
Respondent Name: Indrajit Kundu & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: West Bengal, India.
Judgment Date: 18-10-2019.

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

Download Judgment: State of West Bengal vs Indrajit Kundu & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-10-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Suicide Cases
See all petitions in Criminal Defamation
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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