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.