Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Monday (Aug. 18) upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to quash the abetment to suicide case against the Dadra & Nagar Haveli Administrator and other officials over the suicide by MP Mohanbhai Delkar, observing that harassment, without a direct and proximate link to the suicide, is insufficient to sustain charges under Section 306 IPC.

“even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life.”, the court said.

“The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test.”, the court added.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran relied on the cases of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) and Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010), to reiterate that mere harassment, unaccompanied by proximate instigation, is insufficient to constitute abetment.

“Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”, the court said in Amalendu Pal.

Further, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran referenced another recent case of Prakash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2024), where it was observed that the accused must be actively involved in the act of abetment leaving no other option for the deceased but to commit suicide.

“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.”, the court said in Prakash and Ors.

Relying on the aforesaid precedents, the Court observed:

“The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.”, the court said.

The Court noted that the incident mentioned in the deceased's suicide note where he was allegedly not invited or allowed to speak at the Liberation Day function of Dadra and Nagar Haveli on 02.08.2020 had occurred two months prior to his death, and therefore could not be treated as a proximate cause or an incident that drove him to commit suicide

“We are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court had rightly quashed the proceedings, finding the charge of abetment to commit suicide to be absent. Much emphasis was laid on the charge of extortion, which has been first stated in the suicide note and not disclosed in any of the complaints earlier made to the Hon'ble Speaker or the Committee of Privileges.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: Abhinav Mohan Delkar Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 812

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Sangra, Adv. Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, AOR Mr. Chandertanay Choube, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hiten Venegavkar, Adv. Mr. Prashant R. Dahat, Adv. Mr. Sunny Bhimra, Adv. Mr. Mugdha Pande, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Thaledi, Adv. Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. Hiten Venegavkar, Adv. Mr. Prashant R Dahat, Adv. Ms. Priya Mittal, Adv. Mr. Akshansh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, AOR Mr. Prashant R. Dahat, Adv. Mr. Puneet Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv.