Target CLAT 2026 (Crash Course) Starting On: 8 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   Judiciary Foundation Course (Indore) Starting On: 22 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   CLAT Lucknow Starting On: 8 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   CLAT Karol Bagh Starting On: 12 May 2025 (Admission Open)
         









List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Abetment to Suicide

 17-Mar-2025

Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors v. State of Gujarat 

“Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.” 

Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that mere harassment or blackmail, without direct incitement or proximate acts compelling suicide, is insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  

  • The Supreme Court held this in the case of Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors v. State of Gujarat (2025). 

What was the Background of Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors v. State of Gujarat (2025) Case?   

  • The appellants (accused Nos. 1-4) were initially convicted by the trial court and High Court under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide) and 114 (abettor present when offense is committed) of the Indian Penal Code. 
  • The deceased, Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai Parmar, allegedly committed suicide by consuming Dichlorvos Organophosphorus poison on April 25, 2009. 
  • The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the deceased's wife, Jaybalaben, on May 14, 2009, after a delay of 20 days following the death. 
  • According to the prosecution, the appellants had blackmailed the deceased with compromising photographs and videos of him with appellant No. 3 (Geetaben), compelling him to give them money and ornaments. 
  • The prosecution claimed that due to this blackmail, the deceased had misappropriated money from his office (postal department), resulting in disciplinary proceedings and his suspension. 
  • A suicide note allegedly written by the deceased was produced 20 days after his death, which mentioned the blackmail by the appellants as the reason for his suicide.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants abetted the suicide of the deceased. 
  • The Court noted significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the circumstances of finding the deceased and the alleged suicide note. 
  • The Court found the 20-day delay in filing the FIR to be material and unexplained, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. 
  • The Court observed that no incriminating evidence was recovered, such as the alleged poison container, compromising photographs/videos, money, or ornaments allegedly given to the appellants. 
  • The Court determined that the suicide note's authenticity was questionable due to the delayed and controversial circumstances of its discovery, and the handwriting expert who authenticated it was not examined as a witness. 
  • The Court ruled that even if the suicide note were considered genuine, there was no evidence of any act of incitement by the appellants proximate to the date of suicide that left the deceased with no alternative but to take his life. 
  • The Court emphasized that for conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation that reveal a clear mens rea to abet suicide and must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide. 
  • The Court concluded that mere harassment or blackmail, without direct incitement or proximate acts compelling suicide, is insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC. 
  • Based on these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and trial court, and acquitted the appellants of all charges. 

What is Abetment to Suicide? 

  • Section 107 of IPC, 1860 and Section 45 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) define abetment as a deliberate act involving specific actions that lead to suicide.  
  • Three essential components establish abetment:   
    • Direct instigation of a person to commit the act.  
    • Engagement in conspiracy with others to facilitate the act.  
    • Intentional aid through action or illegal omission.  
  • The prosecution bears the burden to definitively prove that the accused directly instigated or materially aided the deceased in committing suicide.  
  • Legal consequences under Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS) include imprisonment up to 10 years plus financial penalties.  
  • Statistical evidence from NCRB reveals a notably low conviction rate of 17.5% in 2022 for abetment cases.  
  • The burden of proof requires establishing clear causation between the accused's actions and the victim's decision.  
  • In workplace-related cases, courts mandate a higher evidentiary standard due to the professional nature of relationships.  
  • Mere harassment or professional pressure without specific intent to cause suicide does not constitute abetment.  
  • Courts require concrete evidence of "direct and alarming encouragement" rather than circumstantial connections.  
  • The law distinguishes between general misconduct and specific actions intended to drive someone to suicide.  
  • Investigations must establish a clear chain of events showing the accused's direct role in the suicide.

Criminal Law

Demand & Acceptance of Bribe Not Proved in Trap Case

 17-Mar-2025

Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan 

“The said deposition is contrary to the statements made by the independent witnesses that some notes were found thrown on the floor. None of the officers spoke of any of the accused having taken out the notes and thrown it on the floor.” 

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran has held that a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) would not arise against the accused unless the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe is established by the prosecution. 

  • The Supreme Court  held in the matter of Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2025). 

What was the Background of the Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan Case? 

  • This case involves two accused persons - Madan Lal (2nd accused), an Enforcement Inspector, and Narendra Kumar (1st accused), an Office Assistant, both working in the Supply Department. 
  • They were charged under PC Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe. 
  • The complainant had applied for a Rajasthan Trade Authority License (RTAL) at the District Supply Office to sell food grains and edible oils. 
  • The complainant alleged that during the inspection of his shop, Madan Lal demanded a bribe to expedite the issuance of his license. 
  • The complainant visited the District Supply Office at Sri Ganganagar the next day where he met both accused persons, and allegedly Narendra Kumar demanded a bribe on behalf of both of them. 
  • The complainant had already paid the legitimate license fee of Rs. 1000. 
  • Distressed by the bribe demand, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). 
  • The ACB set up a trap operation the very next day based on the complaint. 
  • According to the complainant's original statement to the ACB, the amount demanded was Rs. 400 (Rs. 300 for Narendra Kumar and Rs. 200 for Madan Lal, later negotiated down to Rs. 400 total). 
  • The trap involved marked currency notes, and a test solution designed to detect traces of the solution on hands and clothing upon contact with the currency. 
  • The prosecution's case was built upon both the alleged demand by the accused and the subsequent trap proceedings conducted by the ACB. 
  • Both accused persons were initially convicted by the Trial Court, which was upheld by the High Court, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Supreme Court observed that: 
    • The Supreme Court noted "glaring inconsistencies" in the evidence regarding the amount of money demanded as a bribe. 
    • The Court highlighted that during cross-examination, the complainant admitted he couldn't remember the exact amount demanded by the 2nd accused, contradicting his earlier complaint. 
    • Regarding the trap, the Court observed that independent witnesses didn't actually witness the physical transaction of the bribe, having entered the scene only after the complainant's signal. 
    • The Court noted discrepancies in testimony: some witnesses stated currency notes were found scattered on the floor, while trap officers claimed the money was recovered from the accused persons' trouser pockets. 
    • The Supreme Court found that the testimonies of the independent witnesses contradicted the prosecution's version of events. 
    • The Court concluded that these contradictions created "reasonable doubt" about whether there was actual acceptance of bribe amounts by both accused. 
    • The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt both the demand for a bribe and its acceptance. 
    • The Court ruled that without proof of demand and acceptance, the presumption under Section 20 of PCA could not be applied. 
    • Based on these observations, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentences of both accused, acquitting them of all charges. 

What is Section 20 of PC Act? 

  • Section 20: Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage 
    • In any trial concerning offences punishable under section 7 or section 11, if it is established that a public servant has accepted, obtained, or attempted to obtain any undue advantage, a legal presumption arises. 
    • This presumption states that the public servant is deemed to have accepted or attempted to obtain that undue advantage unless proven otherwise. 
    • This provision aims to deter corrupt practices among public officials by placing the burden of proof on the accused to demonstrate their innocence.