The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings against an individual charged with abetment to suicide, observing that mere allegations of an illicit relationship, in the absence of a positive act of instigation or incitement, do not satisfy the legal requirements under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Division Bench, comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, held that for a charge of abetment to be sustained, there must be evidence of a clear mens rea and a proximity between the accused’s actions and the act of suicide.
Background of the Case
The case originated from the death of one Komal Sahu, whose body was found hanging from a tree in October 2024 in Chhattisgarh. Following an investigation, a final report was filed naming the appellant, Balaji Jaiswal, as the first accused and the deceased’s wife, Revati Bai, as the second accused.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant and Revati Bai had illicit relations and that the wife had frequently insulted the deceased in the appellant’s presence. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 (Common intention) of the IPC on December 16, 2024. The Chhattisgarh High Court subsequently dismissed the appellant’s revision application on April 8, 2025, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Anand P. Pande, argued that even if the prosecution’s material were accepted in its entirety, it remained insufficient to establish abetment. He pointed out that the deceased and the appellant had consumed liquor together on the night of May 5, 2024, and the suicide was discovered two days later on May 7. He contended there was no proximate act of instigation and that allegations of an affair were hearsay.
Conversely, the state’s counsel, Ms. Ankita Sharma, submitted that the illicit relationship and the humiliation of the deceased in the appellant’s presence constituted conduct that drove Komal Sahu to suicide. She argued that the consistent statements from family members and neighbors justified the trial proceeding.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC. Referring to the precedent in Prakash vs. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Court noted that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another to commit suicide.
On the requirement of ‘Instigation’: The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001), stating:
“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’… a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.”
The Bench observed that the prosecution’s material only indicated that the deceased was addicted to liquor and that general allegations of an illicit relationship existed. It found no material to indicate any “direct or indirect act” of instigation by the appellant in close proximity to the suicide.
On Mens Rea and Lack of Proximity: The Court noted that the appellant and the deceased had shared drinks on the night of May 5, while the suicide occurred on May 7.
“There is no material whatsoever as regards the proximity between the meeting of the appellant and the deceased, and his committing suicide… the clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide by Komal is absent.”
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that courts must be “extremely careful” in Section 306 cases as the main person (the deceased) is unavailable for cross-examination. Citing Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat (2010), the Bench stated:
“Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant/accused to face the trial.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in failing to quash the proceedings. The Bench set aside the High Court’s order dated April 8, 2025, and quashed the charges framed against Balaji Jaiswal in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2024.
The Court clarified that the adjudication is restricted to the appellant (Accused No. 1) and that the trial against the second accused (the wife) shall proceed uninfluenced by these observations.
Case Details
Case Title: Balaji Jaiswal Versus State of Chattisgarh and Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@SLP (Crl.) No.14640 of 2025)
Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: April 16, 2026
