The Kerala High Court set aside an order discharging an accused in an abetment of suicide case, holding that remarks made during heated arguments lack statutory instigation. Justice Pratheep Kumar ruled absence of mens rea defeats Section 306 IPC.
KERALA: The Kerala High Court has set aside an order from the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kasaragod, discharging an accused in a case of abetment of suicide. The Court ruled that remarks made in the heat of an argument do not constitute instigation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar granted the criminal revision petition, determining that the alleged comment “go away and die” made by the petitioner lacked the requisite mens rea (criminal intent) essential for violation of Section 306 of the IPC.
Factual Background of the case:
This case arose from Crime No. 577/2023 reported at the Melparamba Police Station, subsequently assigned as S.C. No. 427/2024 in the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod. The prosecution argued that the petitioner (Accused No. 1) had an extramarital affair with the deceased (Accused No. 2), who was already married.
Conflict erupted when the deceased learned that the petitioner intended to marry another woman. During an inquiry regarding this matter, a verbal altercation took place. The prosecution claimed that, infuriated by the deceased’s questions, the petitioner insulted her with the statement “go away and die.” Following this confrontation, on September 15, 2023, the deceased, allegedly distressed by the petitioner’s remarks, committed suicide by jumping into a well alongside her five-and-a-half-year-old daughter.
The Additional Sessions Judge had previously denied the petitioner’s request for discharge in an order dated July 8, 2025, deciding to frame charges under Sections 306 (Abetment of suicide) and 204 (Destruction of evidence) of the IPC. The petitioner challenged this decision in the High Court under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Arguments of Parties:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that, even if all allegations against them were accepted as true, they would not constitute offences under Sections 306 and 204 of the IPC. The counsel maintained that the comment was made during an emotional confrontation and lacked an intent to encourage suicide.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner’s actions contributed to the deceased’s death.
Also Read: Lawyer’s Suicide Case || SIT Arrests Deputy Superintendent of Police Kanakalakshmi
Analysis of the Court:
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar evaluated the definition of abetment as outlined in Section 107 of the IPC, which involves instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding someone in committing an offence.
The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. (2002), stating:
“….Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. The word ‘instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea.”
The Court also referenced Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. (1995), which ruled that casual words spoken in the heat of the moment during a quarrel do not amount to abetment of suicide.
Additionally, the bench cited its own ruling in Cyriac v. S.I. of Police (2005), emphasizing that the accused’s intention is key, quoting,
“It is not what the deceased ‘felt’, but what the accused ‘intended’ by his act which is more important in this context. Of course, the deceased’s frail psychology which forced him to the suicide also may become relevant, but it is only after establishing the requisite intention of accused.”
Final Order of the Court:
Applying these legal principles, the Court observed,
“In the instant case also, the words, ‘go away and die’ made by the petitioner was in the midst of a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased, in a heat of passion without having any intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide and as such, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out.”
The Court also noted that since the allegations did not fulfill the criteria for the offence under Section 306 IPC, the charge under Section 204 IPC would similarly not apply.
The High Court granted the Criminal Revision Petition, annulling the order of the Sessions Judge. The Court discharged the petitioner from the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 204 of the IPC, exercising its authority under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS.
Case Title: Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala Crl.Rev.Pet No. 1224 of 2025
Read Attachment:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
