A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India examined the correctness of the Gujarat High Court’s order, which refused to discharge the appellants from charges under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 498A (cruelty to wife), and 114 (abetment in presence of abettor) of the IPC. The case involved allegations that the deceased woman was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and in-laws, which allegedly led to her suicide after 12 years of marriage. The FIR, statements of witnesses, and the chargesheet formed the basis for the prosecution’s claims.

The appellants had sought discharge under Section 227 of CrPC, arguing that the alleged harassment incidents took place a year before her suicide, and thus, no proximate link existed between the alleged cruelty and her death. Both the Trial Court and the High Court dismissed their discharge plea, stating that a prima facie case for trial existed. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, discharging the appellants from Section 306 IPC, but upheld the charge under Section 498A IPC, allowing the trial to proceed on the cruelty charge.

Keywords:

Discharge of accused, Suicide after 12 years of marriage, Physical and mental harassment, Streedhan, Abetment of suicide, Mens rea, Cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:

Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat

ii) Case Number:

Criminal Appeal No. 5175 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date:

10 December 2024

iv) Court:

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

vi) Author:

Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation:

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 439 : 2024 INSC 960

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 306 IPC – Abetment of Suicide
• Section 498A IPC – Cruelty to Wife
• Section 114 IPC – Abetment in Presence of Abettor
• Section 227 CrPC – Discharge of Accused

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):

None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:

Criminal Law, Family Law, Domestic Violence, Abetment of Suicide

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appellants were accused under Sections 306, 498A, and 114 IPC in connection with the suicide of the deceased, who had been married for 12 years. The allegations included physical and mental harassment, selling of her streedhan (gold ornaments), and continuous cruelty, which the prosecution claimed led to her suicide. The Sessions Court and High Court refused to discharge them, leading to the present appeal.

The Supreme Court had to determine whether the allegations against the appellants were sufficient to justify a trial under these sections or whether they should be discharged for lack of evidence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Marriage and Initial Years: The deceased and Appellant No. 1 were married in 2009. For five years, they were childless, during which the deceased allegedly suffered mental harassment from her in-laws and husband.

2. Return to Parental Home: Due to alleged harassment for being childless, the deceased left her matrimonial home but returned after persuasion from her parents. She later gave birth to a son.

3. Incident of Selling of Ornaments: Around 12 months before her death, the deceased told her father that the appellant had sold her gold ornaments, which were given to her as streedhan during her marriage. When she demanded their return, she was allegedly subjected to physical and mental harassment.

4. Suicide and FIR: On 18.04.2021, she was found dead by hanging. The FIR was registered by her father, alleging that she took her life due to continued harassment and cruelty.

5. Legal Proceedings: The appellants sought quashing of the FIR, but their plea was dismissed by the High Court. They then filed a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC, which was also rejected by the Sessions Court and High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the appellants’ actions amounted to “cruelty” under Section 498A IPC?
2. Whether a prima facie case existed for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC?
3. Whether the appellants should be discharged from the charges?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. No Direct Instigation for Suicide: The alleged harassment occurred 12 months prior to the incident, lacking a proximate link to her suicide.
2. No Previous Complaints: The deceased never filed any complaint under Section 498A IPC before.
3. Mens Rea Absent: No active act of instigation was made by the accused to compel the deceased to commit suicide.
4. Harassment Not Sufficient for Abetment of Suicide: Mere discord or cruelty does not establish abetment unless it was of such an extreme nature that the deceased had no other option.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Sufficient Prima Facie Evidence: Witness statements, FIR, and chargesheet established that the deceased was subjected to consistent cruelty.
2. Causal Link Between Harassment and Suicide: Harassment intensified in the months before her death, directly influencing her suicide.
3. Prosecution’s Burden at Trial Stage: At the discharge stage, the accused only has to show that no prima facie case exists, which the appellants failed to do.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Section 498A IPC Charge Upheld: There was sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest that the deceased suffered mental and physical cruelty, making a trial necessary.
2. Section 306 IPC Charge Quashed:
   • No proximate link between harassment and suicide.
   • No active or direct act of incitement to suicide.
   • No mens rea on the part of the accused.

b. Obiter Dicta (If Any)

• Courts must carefully analyze intent and causation in suicide cases before convicting under Section 306 IPC.

c. Guidelines (If Any)

• Mere harassment does not amount to abetment of suicide unless:
  1. It was proximate to the suicide.
  2. The accused instigated or compelled the victim.
  3. The victim had no reasonable alternative.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court struck a balance between preventing misuse of Section 306 IPC and ensuring justice for victims of cruelty. The decision reinforces that “mere harassment” is insufficient for abetment of suicide, but mental and physical cruelty remains punishable under Section 498A IPC.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190
2. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618
3. Ude Singh v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301

Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306, 498A, 114
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 227