In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed the criminal proceedings against Sharad Kumar and another, who were accused of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court ruled that “mere relationship does not imply a legal obligation to repay the deceased’s loan” and that “absence of active instigation or mens rea cannot sustain a case of abetment to suicide.”
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from an incident on May 27, 2016, when Shishir Kumar, the elder brother of the accused, consumed Sulphas and died. His wife, Smt. Kanti Srivastava, immediately informed the police, and a report was registered at Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh.
However, on June 2, 2016, the deceased’s brother-in-law (Opposite Party No.2) lodged an FIR, alleging that the applicants had refused to repay a bank loan taken by the deceased for purchasing a tractor and denied him his rightful share of the family property. According to the complaint, this financial distress led to Shishir Kumar’s suicide.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Whether financial disputes among family members amount to abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
2. Whether refusal to repay a loan taken by the deceased constitutes “instigation” or “abetment” under Section 107 IPC.
3. Whether the absence of active encouragement or direct provocation to commit suicide can sustain criminal liability.
Court’s Observations and Verdict
The matter was heard by Justice Brij Raj Singh, who carefully examined the prosecution’s evidence, witness statements, and relevant legal precedents before concluding that the charge against the accused lacked merit. The court held:
1. Lack of Active Instigation or Mens Rea:
The court emphasized that “abetment involves a mental process of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding,” which was absent in this case. There was no direct evidence that the accused actively encouraged or forced the deceased to take his life.
2. No Legal Obligation to Repay Loan:
The judge noted that the bank loan was sanctioned in the deceased’s name, based on his own assets, and there was no legal duty on the accused to repay it. Thus, “financial disputes alone do not create criminal liability under Section 306 IPC.”
3. Precedents on Abetment to Suicide:
The court relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments, including:
– Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628 – which held that mere grudge or disputes cannot amount to abetment.
– M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) 4 SCC 633 – which emphasized the need for a clear guilty intention or instigation.
– Geo Verghese v. State of Rajasthan (2021 SCC Online SC 873) – which ruled that the act of abetment must be a direct cause of suicide.
4. No Evidence of Criminal Intimidation or Harassment:
The court noted that the deceased had independent ownership of his land and financial dealings and that no evidence indicated that the accused had harassed him or created circumstances compelling him to take his life.
Final Order
Declaring the continuation of the proceedings as an “abuse of process of law”, the High Court quashed the entire criminal case, including the cognizance order dated December 6, 2016, by the Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.
