In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court quashed charges against Smt. Laxmi Das, accused of abetting the suicide of her son’s lover. The court ruled that a casual remark made by the appellant to the deceased, suggesting she “need not live if she cannot survive without marrying her lover,” does not amount to abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma in Laxmi Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017].
Background of the Case
The case dates back to July 3, 2008, when the deceased, Souma Pal, was found dead near railway tracks between Garia and Narendrapur stations in West Bengal. Her death was recorded as unnatural, and her family alleged that Souma was driven to suicide due to the actions of Laxmi Das, her son Babu Das, and two other family members.
Souma’s family had opposed her relationship with Babu Das. The chargesheet alleged that Laxmi Das disapproved of her son marrying Souma and insulted her, reportedly telling her she “might as well die” if she could not live without him. Based on these allegations, charges were filed under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 109 read with 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court carefully addressed several key legal issues:
1. What Constitutes Abetment Under Section 306 IPC?
The Court analyzed whether the actions or remarks attributed to Laxmi Das amounted to abetment under Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC, which defines abetment. It identified the following criteria for abetment:
– Instigation: There must be a direct or indirect act that provokes or pushes the victim toward suicide.
– Proximity: The accused’s actions must be closely linked to the act of suicide.
– Mens Rea (Intent): There must be clear intent to instigate or assist the victim’s act.
The Court ruled that Laxmi Das’s alleged remarks did not demonstrate the deliberate intent required for abetment.
2. Can Disapproval of a Relationship Amount to Abetment?
The Court considered whether expressing disapproval of a personal relationship—such as that between Souma and Babu—constitutes abetment. It observed:
“Even if the Appellant expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide.”
The Court clarified that opposing or criticizing a relationship does not amount to abetment unless coupled with active provocation or coercion.
3. Proximity and Evidence in Abetment Cases
The Court stressed that abetment requires a proximate and causal link between the accused’s actions and the suicide. It reiterated:
– A casual remark made in anger or frustration does not amount to instigation unless it creates a situation where the victim feels compelled to take their own life.
– There must be clear evidence showing that the accused’s conduct left the victim with no other choice.
In this case, the Court found no evidence of a proximate link between Laxmi Das’s alleged remarks and Souma’s tragic decision.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, while analyzing the evidence, emphasized that abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC must meet stringent legal thresholds. Referring to the interplay of Section 306 and Section 107 (defining abetment), the Court reiterated that abetment requires:
1. Direct or Indirect Instigation: An act that intentionally provokes or pushes the victim toward suicide.
2. Proximity to the Act of Suicide: A clear, immediate connection between the accused’s actions and the suicide.
3. Mens Rea (Intent): Evidence of deliberate intent to abet the act.
The Court observed:
“It is discerned from the record that the Appellant along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure on the deceased to end the relationship between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased’s family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC.”
The Court further noted that a single remark, made in frustration or anger, cannot be construed as intentional instigation unless it directly leads the victim to believe there is no other choice but to end their life.
Decision of the Court
In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that the allegations against Laxmi Das were too remote and indirect to sustain charges of abetment. It observed that there was no evidence of pressure or conduct by the appellant that could have created circumstances leading Souma to take her life.
The charges against Laxmi Das were quashed, and the proceedings in SC Case No. 5(8)10 of 2011, pending before the Additional District Judge, Sealdah, were terminated as far as she was concerned. However, the Court clarified that the trial against the primary accused, Babu Das, would proceed as per law.
