2024 INSC 960 SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 1 of 22

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7957 of 2024)

JAYEDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH

CHAVDA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present criminal appeal arises from an order of

the Gujarat High Court, dated 09.05.2024, whereby

the Court rejected the Criminal Revision Application

No. 536 of 2024 filed by the appellants herein and

refused to discharge the appellants – accused from

offences punishable under sections 306, 498A and

114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

1.

1

IPC

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 2 of 22

3. FIR No. 11206038210259 of 2021 dated 18.04.2021

was registered at the instance of the deceased’s father

against the appellants herein for offences under

sections 306, 498A, 114 of the IPC. It was alleged that

the appellant no.1 was married to the deceased – wife

in the year 2009. The deceased – wife was residing in

the matrimonial house with her in-laws, that is,

appellant nos. 2 and 3. For the first five years of the

marriage, no child was born to the couple. The

deceased – wife was subjected to physical and mental

harassment owing to this and thus returned to her

parental home. When she returned to her

matrimonial home on being convinced by her

parents, a son was born to the deceased in the next

few years. Around twelve months before the alleged

incident, the deceased had informed her father – the

informant that the appellant – accused had sold her

ornaments, given to her as streedhan during her

marriage, and whenever she demanded return of the

same, she was physically and mentally harassed. On

18.04.2021, the informant received information that

the deceased had committed suicide by hanging

herself. It is alleged that it was due to the physical

and mental harassment meted out by the appellant –

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 3 of 22

accused that the deceased was compelled to commit

suicide.

4. Appellants had earlier sought quashing of the FIR,

which petition was dismissed by the High Court and

even the Special Leave Petition before this Court

against the dismissal order of the High Court was

dismissed as withdrawn. The appellants thereafter

preferred an application seeking discharge under

Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2

on the ground that, prima facie, the ingredients for

the offence of abetment as provided under Section

107 of IPC are not made out against them. As per the

complaint the incident had taken place twelve

months ago. In the circumstances prima facie

instigation is not proved, therefore the offence as per

sections 306, 498A, 114 of the IPC are not made out

against them. The Sessions Court, vide order dated

28.02.2024, dismissed the discharge application

observing that in the circumstances of the case, it did

not seem just and proper to discharge or acquit any

accused person without recording evidence on all the

facts alleged.

2

CrPC

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 4 of 22

5. Appellants challenged the above order before the

High Court in a Criminal Revision Petition, wherein

the High Court in the impugned order has dismissed

the same and held that the appellants failed to bring

any material on record to prove that a prima facie

case is not made out to frame charges against them.

The Court, while dismissing the revision petition,

observed that at the stage of charge framing, the

Court's role is preliminary and limited to determining

whether a prima facie case exists. The test applied is

whether the materials presented by the prosecution,

taken at its face value, disclose ingredients of the

alleged offence. The Court is not required to evaluate

the probative value of the evidence or assess its

sufficiency for conviction. Instead, it only has to

consider whether there is a strong suspicion that the

accused might have committed the offence. This

suspicion must be based on credible material and not

on arbitrary conclusions. In the present case, witness

statements revealed that the deceased had faced

consistent physical and mental harassment by the

accused. The harassment included selling the

deceased's gold ornaments, which was her

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 5 of 22

streedhan, and torturing her when she demanded

their return. Witnesses also indicated that the

harassment intensified before her suicide,

particularly during a recent family event, and directly

contributed to her decision to end her life. These

statements provided sufficient material to establish

strong suspicion against the accused. The Court

further noted that the appellants failed to present any

material demonstrating that the allegations were

patently absurd or inherently improbable. As such,

the High Court upheld the decision of the Sessions

Court to frame charges under Sections 306 and 498A

of the IPC. The revision petition was dismissed, with

the High Court finding it devoid of merit and an

attempt to delay the trial.

6. Aggrieved by this judgment, the appellants are before

us on several grounds, inter alia, that the allegations

against them are completely baseless and they have

been roped in on concocted facts and there is nothing

on record to show how the appellants were even

remotely involved in abetting the suicide of the

deceased. Further, the appellants also claimed that

allegations made against them in the FIR as well as

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 6 of 22

statements brought on the record are vague and

general, and do not constitute an offence either under

section 306 or section 498A, IPC. And thus, there is

no prima facie case against them to condemn them to

face trial as the key ingredient of mens rea required

to make out a case under section 306, IPC is

absolutely lacking. That apart, from the alleged

selling of the ornaments there was no bone of

contention between the deceased and the appellants.

Having been together with appellant no. l for a

duration of almost twelve years there has been no

other complaint filed against any of the appellants

under section 498A, IPC nor is the claim made by the

informant that there was a constant demand for

dowry or that the appellant kept the deceased badly

or treated her badly. The only instance, as alleged in

the FIR, of harassment was allegedly met out to the

deceased when she inquired about getting back the

jewellery that was allegedly sold off by appellant no.1

and his family members which, admittedly, as per the

order of the Trial Court, occurred a year prior to

death of the deceased.

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 7 of 22

7. We have heard the learned counsels for parties and

have perused the material on record. We find that the

following issues arise for our consideration:

1. Whether a prima facie case under Section

498A, IPC is made out against the appellant

– accused?

2. Whether a prima facie case under Section

306, IPC is made out against the appellant –

accused?

3. Whether the appellant – accused can be

discharged for the offences under sections

306 and 498A, IPC?

8. Section 498A, IPC provides for punishment to the

husband or to relatives of the husband of a woman

subjecting the woman to cruelty. ‘Cruelty’ under this

provision has been explained to mean –

a. any willful conduct which is of such a nature as

is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide

or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb

or health (whether mental or physical) of the

woman; or

b. harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coercing her or any

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 8 of 22

person related to her to meet any unlawful

demand for any property or valuable security or

is on account of failure by her or any person

related to her to meet such demand.

9. This Court in the case of U. Suvetha v. State

3, laid

down the following ingredients to constitute the

offence under section 498-A, IPC:

i. The woman must be married;

ii. She must be subjected to cruelty or

harassment; and

iii. Such cruelty or harassment must have been

done either by husband of the woman or by

the relative of her husband.

10. This Court has also held in the judgment in the case

of State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao

4, that not

every kind of harassment would amount to ‘cruelty’

within the meaning of the provision, to constitute the

offence punishable therein. Every case has to be

analysed on its individual facts to assess whether the

act of the accused persons constitute s cruelty.

3

(2009) 6 SCC 757

4

(2008) 15 SCC 582

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 9 of 22

Further, cruelty can either be mental or physical, and

it is to be seen on the facts of each case.

11. From the above understanding of the provision, it is

evident that, ‘cruelty’ simpliciter is not enough to

constitute the offence, rather it must be done either

with the intention to cause grave injury or to drive

her to commit suicide or with intention to coercing

her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands.

12. In the present case, the deceased has committed

suicide after twelve years of marriage. In these twelve

years, the informant and other witnesses on record

have stated that the deceased had informed them on

multiple occasions that she was subjected to physical

and mental harassment by the appellants herein. It

has also been stated that once before she had

returned to her parental home owing to the alleged

cruelty and was later sent back to her matrimonial

house. Deceased’s father, who is the informant, has

also stated that around twelve months prior to her

death, the appellants had sold the deceased’s

streedhan and had tortured her when she demanded

them back. The same has also been stated by her

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 10 of 22

relatives who have been examined by the

Investigating Officer during investigation.

13. The appellants’ argument that the deceased had not

made a single complaint for cruelty or harassment

against the appellants in the twelve years of marriage

cannot be sustained. Merely because she did not file

any complaint for twelve years does not guarantee

that there was no instance of cruelty or harassment.

14. Further, the argument that ingredients of section

498A, IPC are not made as the allegations made

therein are general and vague , also does not

strengthen the case of the appellants as the

allegations, with specific, instances stated by the

informant and other witnesses prima facie constitute

a case for offence under section 498-A, IPC. From a

perusal of the FIR, findings of the Investigating

Officer in the chargesheet as well as the statements

of the deceased’s cousins recorded during

investigation prima facie indicate that the deceased

was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty

by her husband and the in-laws. There is also the

specific instance related to the alleged selling of the

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 11 of 22

gold ornaments and subsequent cruelty upon the

demand for return made by the deceased. A

preliminary analysis, as required during the stage of

charge-framing, points towards the probable

commission of the offence of cruelty as provided

under section 498-A, IPC.

15. Hence, the appellants cannot be discharged for

offence under section 498-A, IPC and should be

charged with and tried for the same.

16. Section 306 of the IPC provides for punishment for

the offence of abetment of suicide. It has to be read

with Section 107 of the IPC which defines the act of

‘abetment’. The provisions read as follows:

“306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person

commits suicide, whoever abets the

commission of such suicide, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to

ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

“107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets

the doing of a thing, who—

First.—Instigates any person to do that

thing; or

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 12 of 22

Secondly.—Engages with one or more other

person or persons in any conspiracy for the

doing of that thing, if an act or illegal

omission takes place in pursuance of that

conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that

thing; or

Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or

illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who by wilful

misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment

of a material fact which he is bound to

disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or

attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be

done, is said to instigate the doing of that

thing.

Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or

at the time of the commission of an act, does

anything in order to facilitate the

commission of that act, and thereby

facilitate the commission thereof, is said to

aid the doing of that act.”

17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the

act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged

under this section, the prosecution must establish

that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by

the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of

the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the

IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 13 of 22

or encouraged the individual to commit suicide,

conspiring with others to ensure that the act was

carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to

act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own

life.

18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a

well-established legal principle that the presence of

clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is

essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient

to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The

prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct

action by the accused that led the deceased to take

his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot

simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident

and explicitly discernible. Without this, the

foundational requirement for establishing abetment

under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the

necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to

provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same

position was laid down by this Court in S.S.

Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan

5, wherein it was

observed that:

5

(2010) 12 SCC 190

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 14 of 22

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of

instigating a person or intentionally aiding a

person in doing of a thing. Without a positive

act on the part of the accused to instigate or

aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot

be sustained. The intention of the legislature

and the ratio of the cases decided by the

Supreme Court is clear that in order to

convict a person under Section 306IPC there

has to be a clear mens rea to commit the

offence. It also requires an active act or direct

act which led the deceased to commit suicide

seeing no option and that act must have been

intended to push the deceased into such a

position that he committed suicide.”

19. To bring a conviction under section 306, IPC it is

necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or

push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires

certain such act, omission, creation of

circumstances, or words which would incite or

provoke another person to commit suicide. This

Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of

Chhattisgarh

6

, defined the word “instigate” as

under:

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,

provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.

To satisfy the requirement of instigation

6

(2001) 9 SCC 618

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 15 of 22

though it is not necessary that actual words

must be used to that effect or what

constitutes instigation must necessarily

and specifically be suggestive of the

consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to

incite the consequence must be capable of

being spelt out. The present one is not a

case where the accused had by his acts or

omission or by a continued course of

conduct created such circumstances that

the deceased was left with no other option

except to commit suicide in which case an

instigation may have been inferred. A word

uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without

intending the consequences to actually

follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

20. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to

bring a case under Section 306, IPC are:

i. the abetment;

ii. the intention of the accused to aid or instigate

or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

21. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is

imperative that the accused intended by their act to

instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, in

cases of death of a wife, the Court must meticulously

examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as

well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary

to determine whether the cruelty or harassment

inflicted on the victim left them with no other option

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 16 of 22

but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of

suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct

or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide.

Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to

establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be

evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely

linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or

drove the victim to commit suicide.

22. It is essential to establish that the death was a result

of suicide and that the accused actively abetted its

commission. This can involve instigating the victim

or engaging in specific actions that facilitated the act.

The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the

accused played a definitive role in the abetment.

Without clear evidence of an active role in provoking

or assisting the suicide, a conviction under Section

306 IPC cannot be sustained.

23. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated

through actions or behaviors of the accused that

directly contributed to the victim’s decision to take

their own life. Harassment, in itself, does not suffice

unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts o f

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 17 of 22

incitement or facilitation. Furthermore, these actions

must be proximate to the time of the suicide,

showcasing a clear connection between the accused’s

behavior and the tragic outcome. It is only through

the establishment of this direct link that a conviction

under Section 306 IPC can be justified. The

prosecution bears the burden of proving this active

involvement to hold the accused accountable for the

alleged abetment of suicide. The same position has

been laid down by this court in several judgments,

such as:

i. M. Mohan v. State

7;

ii. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of

West Bengal

8;

iii. Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka

9.

24. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC,

there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts

of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide,

especially in the context of abetment, involves

complex attributes of human behavior and reactions,

7

(2011) 3 SCC 626

8

(2010) 1 SCC 707

9

(2007) SCC OnLine Kar 824

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 18 of 22

requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing

proof of the accused’s role in instigating the act. Mere

allegations of harassment are not enough unless the

accused’s actions were so compelling that the victim

perceived no alternative but to take their own life.

Such actions must also be proximate to the time of

the suicide. The Court examines whether the

accused’s conduct, including provoking, urging, or

tarnishing the victim’s self-esteem, created an

unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were

intended only to harass or express anger, they might

not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation.

Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts,

considering the accused’s intent and its impact on

the victim.

25. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana

10,

held that to convict an accused under Section 306

IPC, the intent or mental state to commit the specific

crime must be evident when assessing culpability. It

was observed as under:

“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide,

there must be a proof of direct or indirect

10

(2019) 17 SCC 301

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 19 of 22

act(s) of incitement to the commission of

suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the

question of cause of a suicide, particularly in

the context of an offence of abetment of

suicide, remains a vexed one, involving

multifaceted and complex attributes of

human behaviour and responses/reactions.

In the case of accusation for abetment of

suicide, the court would be looking for cogent

and convincing proof of the act(s) of

incitement to the commission of suicide. In

the case of suicide, mere allegation of

harassment of the deceased by another

person would not suffice unless there be

such action on the part of the accused which

compels the person to commit suicide; and

such an offending action ought to be

proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether

a person has abetted in the commission of

suicide by another or not, could only be

gathered from the facts and circumstances of

each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a

person has abetted commission of suicide by

another, the consideration would be if the

accused is guilty of the act of instigation of

the act of suicide. As explained and

reiterated by this Court in the decisions

abovereferred, instigation means to goad,

urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to

do an act. If the persons who committed

suicide had been hypersensitive and the

action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily

expected to induce a similarly circumstanced

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 20 of 22

person to commit suicide, it may not be safe

to hold the accused guilty of abetment of

suicide. But, on the other hand, if the

accused by his acts and by his continuous

course of conduct creates a situation which

leads the deceased perceiving no other

option except to commit suicide, the case

may fall within the four corners of Section

306IPC. If the accused plays an active role in

tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of

the victim, which eventually draws the victim

to commit suicide, the accused may be held

guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of

mens rea on the part of the accused in such

cases would be examined with reference to

the actual acts and deeds of the accused and

if the acts and deeds are only of such nature

where the accused intended nothing more

than harassment or snap show of anger, a

particular case may fall short of the offence

of abetment of suicide. However, if the

accused kept on irritating or annoying the

deceased by words or deeds until the

deceased reacted or was provoked , a

particular case may be that of abetment of

suicide. Such being the matter of delicate

analysis of human behaviour, each case is

required to be examined on its own facts,

while taking note of all the surrounding

factors having bearing on the actions and

psyche of the accused and the deceased.”

26. On a careful and close consideration of the facts and

the material on record in the present case and in light

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 21 of 22

of the law laid down by this Court regarding Section

306, IPC, there appears no proximate link between

the alleged facts, instances of harassment and her

subsequent death by hanging. The alleged incident of

selling of gold ornaments and subsequent physical

and mental harassment, as alleged, occurred almost

a year before the FIR was registered at the instance

of the father of the deceased. Even the statements of

the deceased’s cousins only mention instances which

occurred a year prior to the death of the deceased.

Further, selling of gold ornaments and the same was

followed by discord and harassment upon their

demand, even if true, do not reflect any intention to

instigate, incite or provoke the deceased to commit

suicide. Mere harassment and such issues between

the wife and her husband along with the in-laws do

not appear to create a scenario where she was left

with no option other than to end her life. There is,

therefore, absence of mens rea to instigate suicide of

the deceased persons. Therefore, prima facie, it

appears that the appellants did not have the requisite

mens rea and neither did they commit any positive or

direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the

commission of suicide by the deceased.

SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024 Page 22 of 22

27. Hence, the ingredients for the offence under Section

306, IPC are not made out even on a preliminary

analysis of the material on record. Therefore, they

cannot be charged under Section 306, IPC and thus

deserve to be discharged of the same.

28. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is

partly allowed, they are discharged from the charges

under Section 306 of the IPC, however the charge

under Section 498A of the IPC is upheld and the trial

under this provision shall proceed against them.

29. Pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH)

……………………………………J.

(PRASANNA B. VARALE)

NEW DELHI

DECEMBER 10, 2024