The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has delivered a significant judgment in Vaibhav s/o Premanand Mawale v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Revision Application No. 174 of 2024), discharging a young man accused of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, while setting aside the lower court’s order rejecting the discharge plea, underscored the principle that mere refusal to marry cannot be construed as instigation to suicide.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around the tragic death of a young woman who committed suicide on December 3, 2020, leaving behind a detailed suicide note. The deceased was in a nine-year-long romantic relationship with the accused, Vaibhav Mawale, a 25-year-old with a Bachelor of Computer Applications degree, hailing from Wadner Gangai, Amravati. According to the prosecution, the relationship soured when Mawale ended the relationship and reportedly developed feelings for another woman. This emotional turmoil allegedly drove the deceased into depression, culminating in her taking her own life.
Following the incident, the deceased’s father filed a report accusing Mawale of abetting the suicide. The police investigation included the seizure of the suicide note, examination of WhatsApp chats between the deceased and the accused, and witness statements. The prosecution charged Mawale with abetment of suicide, asserting that the breakup and alleged promise of marriage constituted abetment.
Legal Issues
The critical legal question before the court was whether breaking off a consensual relationship could amount to “abetment” under Section 306 IPC. The court examined the following aspects:
1. Mens Rea and Instigation: Whether the accused’s actions demonstrated an intention to provoke or incite the deceased to commit suicide.
2. Proximity and Direct Influence: Whether there was a direct or indirect nexus between the accused’s conduct and the deceased’s act of suicide.
3. Evidence of Abetment: Whether the prosecution could establish any direct instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding as per Section 107 IPC.
Observations and Judgment
Justice Joshi-Phalke relied on precedents, including Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh and M. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu, to underscore the necessity of proving clear and proximate abetment. The court remarked:
“Broken relationships and heartbreaks are part of everyday life. It cannot be said that the refusal to marry, by itself, amounts to instigation to commit suicide. The material on record must show a direct nexus or active encouragement, which is absent in this case.”
The court found that the suicide note and WhatsApp chats demonstrated a consensual relationship that turned sour, without evidence of a promise of marriage or coercion. Moreover, the timeline between the breakup in July 2020 and the suicide in December 2020 further weakened the causation argument.
Rejecting the Sessions Court’s order to frame charges, the High Court ruled that subjecting the applicant to trial would be an abuse of the judicial process, as the evidence lacked prima facie merit to establish abetment.
Lawyers Involved:
– Counsel for the Applicant: Shri Akshay Sudame
– Additional Public Prosecutor for the State: Shri M.J. Khan
Case Reference:
Criminal Revision Application No. 174 of 2024, decided on January 15, 2025.
