Supreme Court of India
Laxmi Das vs The State Of West Bengal on 21 January, 2025
2025 INSC 86
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 706 OF 2017
LAXMI DAS ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
& ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the accused Appellant-Smt.
Laxmi Das challenging the impugned order dated 13.06.2014
passed by the High Court at Calcutta in Criminal Revisional
Application, being CRR No. 1560 of 2012, along with an
application for quashing, being CRAN No. 1946 of 2013. By this
order, the High Court has quashed the chargesheet as only against
Dilip Das/Accused No. 3 and Subrata Das/Accused No. 2, while
Signature Not Verified rejecting the application preferred by the Appellant/Accused
Digitally signed by
No. 4.
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.01.21
17:16:39 IST
Reason:
Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 Page 1 of 11
2. The facts germane to the present dispute are summarised
as below:
2.1 Appellant is the mother of Babu Das/Accused No.
1, who was allegedly in a love affair with the
deceased, Souma Pal. Dilip Das and Subrata Das are
the father and elder brother of Babu Das respectively
(hereinafter collectively “the accused”). All four
were initially accused of abetment of suicide and
charged under Sections 306 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”)
2.2 On 03.07.2008 an unnatural death came to be
registered as the deceased was found dead in the
place between the Garia Railway Station and
Narendrapur Railway Station. Consequently on
06.07.2008, an FIR came to be filed by the
deceased’s uncle/Complainant alleging abetment of
suicide against the accused. The Complainant
alleged that the deceased’s family was unhappy with
the love affair between Babu Das and the deceased,
and wanted her to focus on her studies. On account
of this, they requested Babu Das and the other
accused persons to help them put an end to the same,
which they refused to do. It is further alleged that theCriminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 Page 2 of 11
accused persons refused to cooperate in finding the
deceased when she went missing.
2.3 Accordingly, a chargesheet came to be filed against
the accused under Sections 306 and 109 read with
34 of the IPC. The investigation revealed that about
three to four years before the incident, the love affair
between the deceased and Babu Das began. The
deceased’s parents were against the relationship and
tried several times to break it off, while the accused
persons encouraged the same. The post mortem
report disclosed that the death was caused by the
effect of injuries on impact due to jumping in front
of a train.
2.4 Several neighbours were examined, and accordingly
their statements have come on record. The witnesses
allege that a few days prior to the incident there were
altercations between the deceased and Babu Das,
who refused to marry her. The allegation against the
Appellant herein is that she disapproved of her
son/Babu Das marrying the deceased and insulted
the deceased on account of the same.
3. After filing of the chargesheet, the accused persons
preferred an application for discharge under Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) beforeCriminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 Page 3 of 11
the Trial Court. On 22.03.2012, the Trial Court rejected the
application. Aggrieved, the Appellant along with Dilip Das and
Subrata Das preferred a revisional and a quashing application
before the High Court at Calcutta. The High Court, vide the
impugned order, dismissed the application preferred by the
Appellant and refused to entertain the revision petition and the
quashing application qua her. However, the High Court allowed
the quashing application preferred by Dilip Das and Subrata Das
on the ground that there are no specific allegations against them
in the evidence on record. The operative part of the impugned
order is as follows:
“So far as the petitioner no. 3 (the Appellant) is
concerned I find there are prima facie materials
against her. According to the witness Rejina
Khatoon she was told by the deceased Souma
that when Souma told Babu and his mother, the
petitioner no. 3 herein that she could not survive
without Babu they told her that she need not be
alive and might die. Having regard to such
statement there is nothing wrong in framing
charge against her for an offence under Section
306 IPC”
4. The primary ground taken by the Appellant is that the
Appellant has committed no act against the deceased so as to
instigate her to commit suicide. In fact, even if the allegations of
the Appellant disapproving of their marriage are taken to be true,
it does not make out an offense under Section 306 IPC. Thus, theCriminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 Page 4 of 11
Appellant states that all allegations are frivolous and she had no
role to play in the suicide.
5. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent/State as
well as the respondent/complainant submitted that there is a case
made out against the Appellant under Section 306 IPC from the
evidence on record and the High Court has rightly dismissed the
petition qua the Appellant.
6. We have carefully perused the record and heard the
Learned counsels for the Appellant, the State and the
Complainant.
7. Section 306 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference:
“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.”
We must read Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC which
defines ‘Abetment’; and it reads as below:
“107. Abetment of a thing. – A person abets the
doing of a thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or
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; orCriminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 Page 5 of 11
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 facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is
clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in
close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii)
clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
9. The Appellant has placed strong reliance upon the
judgement in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of
Maharashtra and Another1, wherein this Court has interpreted
Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and observed:
“8. Reading these sections together would
indicate that there must be either an instigation,
or an engagement or intentional aid to ‘doing of
a thing’. When we apply these three criteria to
Section 306, it means that the accused must have
encouraged the person to commit suicide or
engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage1
Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 Page 6 of 11
the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed
to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit
suicide.
…
13. After carefully considering the facts and
evidence recorded by the courts below and the
legal position established through statutory and
judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that
there is no proximate link between the marital
dispute in the marriage of deceased with
appellant and the commission of suicide. The
prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to
substantiate the allegations against the
appellant. The appellant has not played any
active role or any positive or direct act to
instigate or aid the deceased in committing
suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant
nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as
recorded by the Investigating Officer during
investigation suggest any kind of instigation by
the appellant to abet the commission of suicide.
There is no allegation against the appellant of
suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any
time prior to the commission of suicide by her
husband.”
10. In Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and
Another2, this Court has further interpreted the offence as below:
“13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic
ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person
and second, the abetment to the said act by
another person(s). In order to sustain a charge
under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily2
Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 INSC 1020Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 Page 7 of 11
be proved that the accused person has
contributed to the suicide by the deceased by
some direct or indirect act. To prove such
contribution or involvement, one of the three
conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has
to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC,
has been interpreted, time and again, and its
principles are well- established. To attract the
offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to
establish proof of direct or indirect acts of
instigation or incitement of suicide by the
accused, which must be in close proximity to the
commission of suicide by the deceased. Such
instigation or incitement should reveal a clear
mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and
should put the victim in such a position that
he/she would have no other option but to commit
suicide.”
11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to cases that define
the act of ‘instigation’. Accordingly, in Ramesh Kumar v. State
of Chhattisgarh3, this Court observed:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To
satisfy the requirement of instigation 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 a3
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 Page 8 of 11
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.”
12. Reliance is to be placed upon Pawan Kumar v. State of
Himachal Pradesh4, wherein the Supreme Court held:
“43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal
position, we are required to address whether
there has been abetment in committing suicide.
Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of
harassment without any positive action in
proximity to the time of occurrence on the part
of the accused that led a person to commit
suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC
is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely
to cause harassment in ordinary course of things
will not come within the purview of instigation.
A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will
not earn the status of abetment. There has to be
positive action that creates a situation for the
victim to put an end to life.”
13. Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial
pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the High
Court and Trial Court. Even if all evidence on record, including
the chargesheet and the witness statements, are taken to be
correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the Appellant. We
4
Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2017) 7 SCC 780
Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 Page 9 of 11
find that the acts of the Appellant are too remote and indirect to
constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC. There is no
allegation against the Appellant of a nature that the deceased was
left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of
committing suicide.
14. 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.
15. Accordingly, the impugned order is partly set aside to the
extent that the charges against the Appellant herein were upheld
by the High Court. Accordingly, the proceedings in SC Case No.
5(8)10 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Additional
District Judge, Sealdah stands quashed qua the Appellant/Smt.
Laxmi Das only. We clarify that the present case is only confined
Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 Page 10 of 11
to the Appellant/Smt. Laxmi Das, and the Trial Court is free to
proceed against the other accused person i.e. accused Babu Das
in accordance with law.
16. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
……………………………………J.
[B. V. NAGARATHNA]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 21, 2025
Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 Page 11 of 11