Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma has held that there needs to be a "positive act" that pushes the deceased/victim to the edge for sustaining charges of abetment to Suicide. 

• The Supreme Court held in the case of Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of the Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Case? 

• This case involves an alleged abetment of suicide where the victim was Souma Pal, who was found dead between Garia Railway Station and Narendrapur Railway Station on 3rd July 2008. 
• The accused parties initially included four members of a family. 
• The deceased Souma Pal and Babu Das were in a love affair for approximately 3-4 years before the incident. 
• The deceased's family was against the relationship and wanted her to focus on her studies. They had requested the accused family to help end the relationship, but the accused allegedly refused to cooperate. 
• On 6th July 2008, a First Information Report was filed by the deceased's uncle (Complainant) alleging abetment of suicide against all four accused persons (appellants) under Sections 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The post-mortem report revealed that the death was caused by injuries sustained from jumping in front of a train. 
• Witness statements indicated that: 
  • There were altercations between the deceased and Babu Das a few days before the incident. 
  • Babu Das had allegedly refused to marry the deceased. 
  • Laxmi Das (the Appellant) had allegedly disapproved of the marriage and insulted the deceased 
• A chargesheet was filed against all accused under Sections 306 and 109 read with 34 of the IPC. 
• After the chargesheet, the accused persons filed for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which was rejected by the Trial Court.  
• Subsequently, Laxmi Das, Dilip Das, and Subrata Das filed revision and quashing applications before the Calcutta High Court. 
• The Calcutta High Court made the following observations: 
  • Regarding Dilip Das and Subrata Das (father and brother): The court found no specific allegations against them in the evidence on record and therefore allowed their quashing applications. 
  • Regarding Laxmi Das (mother): The High Court found prima facie materials against her based specifically on the witness statement of Rejina Khatoon.  
    • The critical evidence cited was that when Souma told Babu and his mother that she couldn't survive without Babu, they allegedly told her that "she need not be alive and might die." Based on this statement, the High Court concluded there were sufficient grounds to frame charges against Laxmi Das under Section 306 IPC. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Calcutta High Court the present appeal has been filed by the mother of Babu Das before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court took a markedly different view from both lower courts and made several important observations: 
  • Legal Framework Analysis: 
    • The Court examined Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and established that three essential elements must be present for abetment of suicide: 
      • Direct or indirect instigation. 
      • Close proximity to the commission of suicide. 
      • Clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide. 
  • Evidence Assessment: 
    • The Supreme Court found "not an iota of evidence" against Laxmi Das, even when considering all evidence on record, including the chargesheet and witness statements. 
  • Nature of Actions: 
    • The Court determined that Laxmi Das's acts were "too remote and indirect" to constitute an offense under Section 306 IPC.  
    • They noted there was no allegation suggesting the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. 
  • Family Dynamic Analysis: 
    • The Court observed that contrary to allegations, Laxmi Das and her family did not attempt to pressure the deceased to end the relationship.  
    • In fact, it was the deceased's family that was unhappy with the relationship. 
  • Interpretation of Alleged Statements: 
    • The Court held that even if Laxmi Das expressed disapproval towards the marriage, or made remarks about "not being alive," these did not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide.  
    • The Court emphasized that there needs to be a "positive act" that pushes the deceased to the edge for sustaining charges under Section 306 IPC. 
• The Supreme Court's analysis shows a careful examination of what constitutes abetment of suicide, distinguishing between disapproval or casual remarks and actual instigation that creates circumstances leaving no option but suicide.  
  • This interpretation represents a more nuanced understanding of Section 306 IPC than that applied by the lower courts. 

What is Abetment of Suicide?  

• Section 107 of IPC 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.