SUPREME COURT RULES: REFUSAL TO MARRY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INSTIGATION UNDER SECTION 107 IPC, QUASHES ABETMENT OF SUICIDE CHARGE:

The Supreme Court has ruled that mere refusal to marry, even if proven, does not amount to “instigation” within the meaning of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court quashed an FIR filed against a man accused of abetting the suicide of a woman who allegedly took her own life after he declined to proceed with their proposed marriage. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, in an appeal filed by Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny, challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to quash an FIR registered against him under Section 306 of the IPC.

The case arose from a complaint lodged in 2016 by the mother of the deceased woman, who was employed as a government advocate. She alleged that her daughter consumed poison and died after Singh reneged on his promise to marry her. According to the prosecution, Singh had initially assured the deceased that he would convince his family to approve their marriage but later withdrew from the commitment, leading to the woman’s suicide. Based on these allegations, the police registered an FIR under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide.

Before the Supreme Court, Singh contended that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not constitute an offence of abetment under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC. The Bench agreed, observing that none of the essential ingredients of the offence were made out. The Court explained that abetment involves a mental process that includes instigating, provoking, or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. A conviction under Section 306, it stated, requires clear evidence of a direct or active role by the accused in inciting or facilitating the act of suicide.

Referring to its earlier rulings in Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that abetment is not established merely by acts that cause emotional distress or disappointment. The conduct must demonstrate a deliberate intention to push the victim into a situation where there is no alternative but to end their life. The Bench clarified that without such a positive act of incitement or active aid, the offence of abetment of suicide cannot stand.

In this case, the Court found that the appellant’s refusal to marry, even if it caused emotional pain to the deceased, could not be construed as instigation to commit suicide. The Bench noted that while the woman may have felt deeply hurt and disappointed, there was no evidence of any direct provocation or deliberate act on the part of the accused that compelled her to take such an extreme step. The Court observed that emotional hurt alone, however unfortunate, cannot substitute for the element of intent necessary to prove the offence.

The judges expressed sorrow over the loss of a young life, remarking that it was tragic that a moment of emotional turmoil led to such a fatal outcome. However, they emphasized that judicial decisions must rest on evidence and legal principles rather than sympathy or sentiment. The Court underscored that convicting or even prosecuting an individual in the absence of the required ingredients of the offence would amount to a miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, holding that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be “nothing short of a travesty of justice,” the Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 273 of 2016 registered at Chheharta Police Station, Amritsar, and all related proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The ruling reaffirms that personal disappointments or emotional conflicts, without evidence of deliberate incitement, cannot attract criminal liability for abetment of suicide under Indian law.