Author- Tilak Narayan Gupta, Central University Of Punjab

CASE DETAILS

i)            Judgement Cause Title / Case Name	Laxmi Das v.  The State of West Bengal & Ors
ii)            Case Number	Criminal Appeal 706 of 2017
iii)            Judgement Date	21.01.2025
iv)            Court	Supreme Court of India
v)        Quorum / Constitution of Bench	Quorum
vi)         Name of Judges	Justice B.V. Nagaratna Justice S.C. Sharma
vii)        Citation	2025 INSC 86
viii)        Legal Provisions Involved	·         Sec 306  read with  34 Of IPC[Abetment of Suicide], ·         Sec  109 of IPC[ Punishment of  Abetment ·         Sec 227of CRPC[Discharge of Accused] ·         Sec 107[Abetment of a thing]

BACKGROUND

The appellant is the mother of the accused [Babu Das]. She is also an accused in the case, which revolves around the death of the victim, Souma Pal, who raises a charge of abetment of committing suicide against the appellant and his family after being found dead near a railway track. Before knowing of the girl [Souma Pal] dead news, his family contacted Babu Das to help them find their missing girl, but he refused to help. Later on, a complaint was filed by his family against Babu Das and his family that their actions drove Souma to take his life on the railway track.

 A charge sheet was filed under sec. 306 and 109 read with 34 of the IPC against Babu Das’s family after a complaint that has been filed by the victim’s family. The investigation later revealed that the appellant’s [Laxmi Das’s] son was in a relationship with the girl. Babu Das’s family was unhappy with the relationship, and his family wanted Babu Das to end his relationship with the girl Souma and wanted their son to focus on his studies. Both families were against their marriage, and Laxmi Das’s mother refused their marriage. The girl, Souma, has remarked that “she told Babu and his mother that she could not live without Babu; they told her that she need not be alive and might die, ”as remarked by the witness.

The Supreme Court has to determine whether mere disapproval of marriage can charge an accused with abetment of committing suicide of the deceased.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1. At the initial stage, An FIR was filed on 06.07.2008 by the deceased Uncle alleging an allegation of abetment of Suicide. A chargesheet has been filed in which Babu Das [ Accused NO 1] along with, his father Dilip Das [ Accused No 2], his elder brother Subrata Das [ Accused No 3] and his mother Laxmi Das [ Accused No 4] initially were charged with abetment of murder under Sec 306 and 109 read with 34 of IPC.
2. At the Trial Court, the accused persons applied for discharge under Sec 227 of CRPC before the Trial Court. On 22.03.2012 the Trial court rejected the application.
3. At the High Court, Laxmi Das [Appellant], along with Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4 Filed a revisional application [ CRR No. 1560 of 2012] and the quashing application [ CRAN No.1946 of 2013]. The High Court order dated 13.06.2014 quashed charges against Accused No 3 and Accused No 4 and rejected the application of appellant Laxmi Das.
4. At the Supreme Court, Laxmi Das filed Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 which was accepted by the Supreme Court on 21.01.2015, charges on Laxmi Das [ Appellant] were quashed while the trial continued against Babu Das.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• On 03.07.2008 an unnatural death was registered, the deceased [Soumya Pal] was found dead between Garia Railway station and Narendrapur Railway Station, death was caused by injuries from jumping in front of the train as stated in the post-mortem report.
• The deceased Soumya Pal and Babu Das [ Accused No 1] were in a love affair. The relationship had been ongoing for 3-4 years before the accident took place.
• The deceased parents were against the rrelationshipand several times tried to break it off. The accused family encouraged the same and wanted to focus on her studies.
• Days before the accident happened, neighbours reported an altercation between the accused Babu Das, and deceased Souma Pal, as he refused to marry her. Laxmi Das, the appellant, has an allegation that she refused the marriage and insulted the deceased on account of the same.
• A witness, Rejina Khatoon, stated the deceased had told her that when she expressed distress over her relationship with Babu Das, mother Laxmi that she could not survive without Babu then they told her that she need not be alive and might die.

LEGAL ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the appellant, Laxmi Das [Accused No 4] could be held liable for abetment of suicide under sec 306 IPC read with Sec 107 IPC. The SC has to decide whether Laxmi Das’s alleged remarks and conduct amounted to Intentional aid, an investigation leading to the death of deceased Souma Pal.
2. Whether mere disapproval of a relationship and alleged verbal remarks can constitute abetment of suicide under sec 306 IPC.
3. The SC has to decide whether a statement made in anger or disapproval, without a direct intention to someone to suicide could legally amount to abetment under sec 107.
4. The SC has to analyze whether mens rea [guilty intent] was present in the alleged acts of Laxmi Das.

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• Laxmi Das [ Appellant] argued that she never encouraged, instigated, or forced the deceased Souma Pal to take her own life. Even If the allegation that she disapproved the relationship of Souma and Babu, was true, mere disapproval does not amount to abetment under Section 306 of IPC.
• The appellant contended that there was no intention [mens rea] to push the deceased towards Suicide.
• A casual remark or disapproval of marriage doesn’t constitute the necessary mental element to sustain a charge under Section 306 of IPC.
• There was no direct causal connection between her words and the deceased decision to commit suicide. She also stressed that there was no continuous harassment or pressure on the deceased Souma from her side.
• The Appellant has placed a strong reliance upon the judgment in [].

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• Existence of Prima Facia Evidence of Abetment- The state and complaining argued that there were prima facia materials indicating that Laxmi Das [ accused ] had abetted the suicide of the deceased Souma Pal.
• Witness Rejina Khatoon’s statement suggested that when the deceased expressed distress about her relationship with Babu Das. Laxmi Das allegedly told her “ You need not be alive and might die”.
• This remark, according to the respondents, was instigative and contributed to the deceased’s [Souma Pal] mental distress, pushing her toward suicide.
• Conduct of the Appellant showed Active Disapproval and Insult – Laxmi Das consistently opposed their relationship and insulted the deceased. Her alleged behaviour created psychological pressure on the deceased Souma Pal, which contributed to her decision to commit suicide.
• Even if there was no explicit order to commit suicide, continuous mental harassment, rejection, and derogatory remarks could amount to abetment.
• The complaint emphasized that the altercations between the deceased and Babu Das occurred just days before the suicide, making Laxmi Das’s alleged remark a proximate factor contributing to the tragic act.
• The deceased’s emotional distress due to rejection and insult by the accused played a role in her suicide.

RELATED PROVISIONS

• Sec 306 of IPC. Abetment of suicide. – If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

We must read Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC which defines ‘Abetment’; and it reads as below:

• “107. Abetment of a thing. – A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and to the doing of that thing; or —Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either before or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
• Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

227. Discharge.

– If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution on this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing

• Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

109. Punishment of abutment, if the act abetted, is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.—

Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abet­ment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

ANALYSIS:

Let’s break this down. The Supreme Court had to tackle a tricky question: When does saying “no” to marriage become a crime?

1. The Legal Puzzle:

Here’s what the law says – Sections 306 and 107 of IPC. Pretty straightforward on paper. But in real life? Not so much. You need three things to prove abetment: direct or indirect instigation, timing that makes sense, and the intent to cause harm. Simple right? Wrong.

2. What Did They Have?

Against Laxmi Das, the evidence was thin. Like, thin. Sure, she didn’t want her son to marry Souma. Who hasn’t seen parents oppose marriage? There was this witness who heard her say something harsh. Some neighbours talked about insults. But here’s the thing – was that enough to send someone to jail?

3. The Court’s Take:

The judges weren’t buying it. They looked at everything and thought, “Hold up.” There’s a big difference between being a disapproving parent and pushing someone to suicide. Words spoken in anger? They happen. But that’s not the same as wanting someone dead.

4. Previous Cases Said What?

Courts have been pretty clear about this stuff. You can’t just point fingers without solid proof. Random harsh words don’t count. There needs to be a real connection between what someone did and what tragically happened.

CONCLUSION:

Here’s the deal. The Supreme Court just dropped some serious wisdom in Laxmi Das vs. The State of West Bengal (2025). They said, “Look, being against a marriage isn’t the same as driving someone to suicide.” Harsh? Maybe. Criminal? Nope.

Think about it. Parents oppose marriages all the time. Sometimes they say things they shouldn’t. But is that a crime? That’s a whole different ballgame. The Court drew a line in the sand – you need real proof, not just “they-said-this-and-then-that-happened.”

The interesting part? While Laxmi Das walked free, her son’s trial continued. That tells you something about how courts look at these cases. They’re not just throwing around charges. They’re thinking about who did what and why.

Bottom line? This judgment’s gonna be a game-changer. Lower courts now have a clear message: Don’t mix up family drama with criminal acts. You need solid evidence of someone actively pushing another person towards suicide. Just being disapproving? That ain’t enough. Sometimes the law needs to remind us – that not everything that hurts is a crime.

Think these cases gonna change how we look at family disputes? You bet it will. But maybe that’s exactly what we needed – a reality check on where social issues end and criminal law begins.

[1] Rohini Sudharshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701