In a significant judgment that reiterates the limits of criminal liability under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)—now re-enacted as Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)—the Allahabad High Court in Rachana Devi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Revision No. 5794 of 2023) set aside the order of the Sessions Court rejecting the discharge of the accused. The Court ruled that mere matrimonial discord or differences in domestic life cannot, by themselves, amount to “abetment of suicide” unless there is direct or indirect instigation with the requisite mens rea.
This decision provides clarity on how courts should approach allegations of abetment of suicide in matrimonial settings, a recurring issue in Indian criminal law.
Background of the Case
The revisionists before the High Court were Rachana Devi (the wife of the deceased) and her parents (revisionist nos. 2 and 3). The deceased, son of Opposite Party No. 2 (O.P. No. 2), had married Rachana Devi about seven years prior to the incident. According to the FIR lodged on 14 November 2022, the revisionists were accused under Section 306 IPC for abetting the suicide of the deceased.
The FIR alleged that:
- The revisionists had insulted and harassed the deceased.
- Rachana Devi had filed a false case against O.P. No. 2 and his family under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- On 8 November 2022, the in-laws allegedly came to the matrimonial home, insulted the deceased, and instigated him to die.
- On 13 November 2022, the deceased was found dead, reportedly having committed suicide due to the alleged abetment by the revisionists.
A charge sheet was filed and cognizance taken. The trial court rejected the discharge application under Section 227 CrPC on 19 October 2023. The revisionists approached the High Court challenging this order.
Arguments by the Revisionists
The revisionists contended:
- False Allegations – The charges of abetment were unfounded. Rachana Devi herself had been subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws, which led her to file complaints under Section 498-A and other provisions.
- Normal Matrimonial Disputes – Disputes arose sporadically between husband and wife, but such disagreements do not amount to abetment.
- Lack of Evidence of Mens Rea – There was no evidence to suggest that the revisionists had the requisite intention (mens rea) to drive the deceased to suicide.
- Statements of Independent Witnesses – Even the neighbours’ statements under Section 161 CrPC reflected only routine quarrels and no instigation to commit suicide
The defence stressed that casual remarks made in anger, such as “why don’t you die,” cannot constitute abetment unless accompanied by the intent to provoke the suicide.
Arguments by the State and O.P. No. 2
Conversely, the State and O.P. No. 2 argued that:
- The revisionists had consistently insulted and harassed the deceased.
- The in-laws on 8 November 2022 explicitly instigated the deceased to die.
- A prima facie case under Section 306 IPC existed, making the discharge order improper.
Legal Principles Discussed
1. Scope of Discharge Under Section 227 CrPC [Section 250(2) of BNSS]
The Court reiterated that discharge is warranted only if the materials on record, taken at face value, do not constitute the alleged offence. At the stage of framing of charges, the prosecution’s evidence is to be presumed true. The sufficiency and truthfulness of evidence can be tested only at trial, not at the discharge stage.
This principle was drawn from Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023) 7 SCC 633, where the Supreme Court held that at the stage of charge, the court must only assess whether a prima facie case exists.
2. Ingredients of Section 306 IPC
Section 306 IPC punishes the abetment of suicide. Read with Section 107 IPC (Section 45 BNS), the provision requires:
- Direct or indirect instigation of the deceased,
- In close proximity to the act of suicide, and
- Clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
The Court cited Laxmi Das v. State of West Bengal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 120), where the Supreme Court clarified that all three elements—instigation, proximity, and mens rea—must co-exist.
3. Meaning of “Instigation”
The High Court relied on Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, which defined “instigation” as “to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.” The Court emphasised that:
- Instigation does not require express words, but there must be a reasonable certainty of inciting the act.
- Casual or angry utterances without intending the consequence cannot constitute instigation.
4. Matrimonial Discord and Suicide
The Court further referred to Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3541), where the Supreme Court held that discord and differences in domestic life are common, and the commission of suicide largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Unless a guilty intention on the part of the accused is apparent, Section 306 IPC cannot be invoked.
Similarly, in Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the Supreme Court held that the remark “go and die” made during a quarrel does not reflect the requisite mens rea to abet suicide.
Finally, the Court cited Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, emphasising that harassment must be of such a nature that it leaves no option except suicide; only then can it be treated as abetment.
The Court’s Analysis
(a) Absence of Mens Rea
After examining the statements of witnesses and material on record, the Court found only general allegations of harassment and insult. While Rachana Devi had indeed filed a dowry harassment case against the deceased and his family, such action arose from their domestic disputes. There was no evidence of intention on the part of the revisionists to abet suicide.
(b) Utterances in Heat of the Moment
The Court acknowledged that on 8 November 2022, the in-laws allegedly told the deceased “he should die.” However, drawing on Swamy Prahaladdas, the Court held that words spoken in anger during a quarrel cannot amount to abetment unless accompanied by guilty intention.
(c) Matrimonial Discord Not Abetment
The High Court noted that matrimonial discord and differences in domestic life are common and cannot, without more, amount to abetment of suicide. The commission of suicide is a complex act influenced by many factors, including the victim’s mental state. Without evidence that the accused created circumstances leaving no other option but suicide, Section 306 IPC is not attracted.
(d) No Prima Facie Case
Even accepting the prosecution’s case as true, the Court held that no prima facie case under Section 306 IPC was made out against the revisionists. The Sessions Court had erred in rejecting the discharge application.
Judgment
In its operative portion, the High Court held:
- The impugned order dated 19 October 2023 rejecting the discharge application was illegal and liable to be set aside.
- No prima facie offence under Section 306 IPC was made out against the revisionists.
- The revision was allowed, and the discharge application of the revisionists was allowed.
Justice Sameer Jain, thus, reaffirmed that criminal liability under Section 306 IPC cannot be stretched to cover routine matrimonial disputes absent clear instigation and mens rea.
Key Takeaways
- High Threshold for Section 306 IPC – The judgment underscores that Section 306 IPC requires more than harassment; it demands evidence of intentional instigation or aiding the suicide.
- Mens Rea is Crucial – Without guilty intention, mere quarrels, insults, or disagreements—even if unpleasant—do not amount to abetment.
- Context Matters – The Court recognises the everyday reality of domestic quarrels and the importance of distinguishing them from conduct designed to drive someone to suicide.
- Protection Against Misuse – The decision also provides a safeguard for spouses and in-laws against false implication in cases of suicide arising out of strained marriages.
- Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents – The High Court’s reasoning draws heavily from binding precedents, ensuring consistency in the application of law across courts.
Conclusion
Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Rachana Devi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be used as a tool to punish ordinary domestic disagreements. By insisting on proof of instigation and mens rea, the Court has aligned itself with long-standing Supreme Court precedents.
This decision will serve as an important reference for trial courts in evaluating charges of abetment of suicide in matrimonial contexts, ensuring that the provision is invoked only where the accused’s conduct genuinely crosses the threshold of criminal abetment.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams