A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., [2025] 1 S.C.R. 825 : 2025 INSC 86, examines whether the acts and words attributed to the appellant mother of the deceased’s lover satisfy the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court reiterates settled principles: to convict under Section 306 IPC there must be either direct or indirect instigation, or engagement in a conspiracy, or intentional aid such that the accused’s conduct bears proximate causal connection to the suicide and manifests a clear mens rea to abet.

The bench, relying on precedents including Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra (2024), Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra (2024), Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) and Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017), finds the materials against the appellant too remote, indirect and lacking the required proximate instigation. A mere expression of disapproval, or an angry remark such as “you need not be alive”, without positive acts or sustained conduct creating a situation where the deceased had no option but suicide, does not satisfy instigation. Consequently, the charges against the appellant under Sections 306 & 107 IPC are quashed while proceedings may continue against other accused where relevant. Keywords: Abetment of Suicide, Instigation, Mens Rea, Proximity, Section 306 IPC.

Keywords: Abetment of Suicide; Instigation; Mens Rea; Proximity; Section 306 IPC

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arises from the High Court of Calcutta’s partial quashing of chargesheet entries where the High Court quashed charges against two accused but refused discharge for the appellant (mother). The factual matrix concerns the suicide of Souma Pal, found dead on railway tracks, and allegations that the accused had abetted her suicide because of tensions arising from her romantic involvement with the appellant’s son, Babu Das. The FIR, lodged by the deceased’s uncle, narrates familial opposition to the relationship and the accused’s alleged refusal to assist in locating the missing girl; neighbours reported altercations and that the appellant expressed disapproval and made insulting remarks.

The Trial Court had refused discharge under Section 227 CrPC; on revisional and quashing petitions the High Court discharged two accused but maintained prima facie material against the appellant relying on a witness statement attributing to the appellant a remark that the deceased “need not be alive”. The Supreme Court was called to evaluate whether the recorded facts meet the legal threshold of instigation or abetment required under Section 306 IPC when read with the definition of abetment in Section 107 IPC. The Court confronted the tension between expressions of hostility and actionable instigation, and assessed precedent law emphasizing proximate, positive acts or sustained conduct that effectively leaves the victim with no reasonable alternative but to take her own life.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The deceased, Souma Pal, and Babu Das had engaged in an amorous relationship spanning approximately three to four years. The deceased’s parents opposed the union and attempted repeatedly to terminate it; the accused family allegedly encouraged continuation of that relationship at earlier stages. On 3 July 2008 the deceased was found dead between Garia Railway Station and Narendrapur Railway Station; post-mortem attributed death to injuries from jumping before a train. An FIR filed on 6 July 2008 alleged that the accused were unsupportive when the deceased went missing and, crucially, that the appellant (mother of Babu Das) had insulted the deceased when the latter expressed she could not survive without Babu.

Witnesses produced statements of altercations a few days prior in which Babu refused to marry the deceased. The chargesheet framed offences under Sections 306 and 109 read with 34 IPC. The Trial Court denied discharge under Section 227 CrPC. The High Court quashed charges against two accused for lack of specific allegations but found prima facie material against the appellant, leaning on a witness statement that the appellant told the deceased she “need not be alive”. The appellant contended that her remarks, at most, manifested disapproval of the relationship and were too remote to constitute instigation; she denied any act intended to abet suicide. The State and complainant argued that the cumulative evidence sufficed to sustain framing of charge under Section 306 IPC.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether expressions of disapproval and an allegedly insulting remark by the appellant constitute instigation sufficient to attract liability under Section 306 IPC?

2. Whether remote, indirect or non-proximate conduct by an accused can satisfy the proximate causal nexus and mens rea required for abetment of suicide?

3. Whether the available evidence on record, including witness statements relied upon by the High Court, prima facie discloses a positive act or sustained course of conduct creating a situation leaving the deceased with no option but to commit suicide?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the appellant committed no positive or proximate act to instigate suicide. The appellant’s alleged expressions of disapproval were ordinary familial objections and did not amount to incitement or conspiracy. Even accepting the witness statement that the appellant said the deceased “need not be alive”, such words in anger or emotion cannot be equated with instigation unless supported by positive conduct or sustained harassment that left the deceased no reasonable alternative. The appellant emphasised absence of any act in temporal proximity to the suicide that could be linked causally to the fatal outcome and contended that mere disagreements over marriage cannot form the basis for Section 306 IPC.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that the witness statements and surrounding facts demonstrate sufficient prima facie material to proceed. The State argued that the appellant’s alleged insulting conduct and refusal to assist in locating the deceased contributed to the deceased’s mental state and created pressure culminating in suicide. It was contended that the totality of conduct and remarks could be considered for framing charges so that full trial could adjudicate the truth.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

1. Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Abetment of suicide.

2. Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Definition of Abetment.

3. Section 227 / 228 CrPC — Jurisdictional context for discharge/framing at trial stage (procedural framework).

I) JUDGEMENT

The Court read Section 306 IPC in consonance with Section 107 IPC and reiterated three essential elements for abetment of suicide:

(i) direct or indirect instigation;

(ii) proximity in time or causal nexus to the suicidal act; and

(iii) a clear mens rea to abet.

The bench extensively relied upon recent and established precedents: Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra (2024) where proximate link and positive role were held necessary; Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra (2024) which underscored that instigation must be capable of being spelt out and place the victim in a position of no reasonable alternative; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) describing instigation as goading or inciting which requires reasonable certainty of consequence; and Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017) that rejected convictions based on mere harassment or casual remarks absent positive proximate action.

Applying those tests to the present record, the Court found the alleged acts of the appellant too remote and indirect. The appellant had not engaged in a sustained course of conduct nor taken any positive steps proximate to the suicide to push the deceased to an edge. The single alleged remark even if true when viewed in isolation lacked the requisite proximate causal quality and did not demonstrate the specific mens rea to abet. The Court therefore disagreed with the Trial Court and the High Court to the extent they refused discharge, and quashed the proceedings against the appellant alone, while permitting trial to continue against other accused.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal principle is that abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC requires more than hostile statements or familial disapproval; there must be evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding conduct that is proximate and shows a deliberate intention to push the victim to suicide. The ratio emphasizes the triad: instigation (direct/indirect), temporal and causal proximity, and demonstrable mens rea. Words uttered in passion or anger without intent, or isolated insults, fall short of instigation unless they are part of a course of conduct or are accompanied by positive acts that render the victim bereft of any reasonable alternative.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed (by way of guidance) that charging decisions must vigilantly distinguish between ordinary family disputes and criminal instigation; courts should not allow the criminal law to be stretched to punish expressions of disapproval unless backed by material adducing proximate causation. The bench reiterated established safeguards at the stage of framing charges: absence of live evidence of positive acts proximate to the suicide militates against making out a prima facie case under Section 306 IPC. The Court also clarified that its decision was confined to the appellant; it did not prejudge the fate of other accused whose roles might be materially different.

c. GUIDELINES 

1. At the charge-framing stage, material relied upon must prima facie disclose either instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid as understood in Section 107 IPC to sustain Section 306 IPC.

2. Courts must assess temporal and causal proximity: the accused’s conduct must be such that it can reasonably be inferred to have caused or substantially contributed to the deceased’s decision to commit suicide.

3. Casual, isolated, or emotional remarks will not ordinarily constitute instigation; there must be evidence of sustained conduct or positive acts that deliberately push a victim toward self-harm.

4. Investigating agencies must collect cogent material showing mens rea and proximate acts before invoking Section 306 IPC to avoid criminalising routine family discord.

5. When witness testimony hinges on hearsay or single stray remarks without corroboration of contemporaneous or continuous pressure, courts should exercise caution before denying discharge.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reaffirms judicial restraint in criminalising family disputes and protects the narrow statutory ambit of Section 306 IPC. By underscoring the need for proximate instigation and specific mens rea, the Court seeks to prevent misuse of abetment provisions based on stray statements or moral disapproval. Practically, the decision places an evidentiary burden on the prosecution at the pre-trial stage to show facts constituting positive acts or a sustained course that plausibly forced the deceased to suicide. This aligns with earlier precedents which balance protecting vulnerable persons and avoiding overbroad criminal liability.

From an investigative perspective, the case signals that allegations of insult or disagreement must be corroborated by evidence of conduct close in time and causally linked to the suicide. Academically, the judgment contributes to jurisprudence about causation and mental culpability in offences against life, clarifying that the bar for abetment is higher than for mere civil or moral fault. The Court’s cautionary stance protects both the sanctity of criminal law and the right of accused to not be tried on flimsy inferences, while preserving the State’s ability to pursue those whose acts genuinely abet another’s suicide.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

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

2. Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 INSC 1020.

3. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618.

4. Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2017) 7 SCC 780.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306; Section 107.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 227 / framing/discharge jurisprudence.