Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), ruling that the charge-sheet failed to meet the legal requirements to establish abetment. The Court criticized the one-sided investigation, which relied entirely on the complainant’s version without exploring other possible causes for the deceased’s suicide.
Instead of allowing the proceedings to continue, the Supreme Court ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a fresh, independent inquiry into the unnatural death. The Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, was directed to form an SIT led by a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police, granting them authority to re-register the case if necessary. The SIT was instructed to submit its findings within two months, with the matter set for further hearing on April 15, 2025.
Facts of the Case
The case involved two interconnected deaths, triggering cross-complaints and criminal proceedings:
1. Death of Ziaul Rahman (02.11.2022)
- The first appellant’s son, Ziaul Rahman, was allegedly in a romantic relationship with a young woman, Tanu.
- On November 2, 2022, he was beaten by Tanu’s family members with sticks and fists, allegedly due to disapproval of their relationship.
- Eyewitnesses Saleem Ahmed and Abdul Rehman saw the assault.
- Injuries: He suffered 14 injuries, with shock and hemorrhage as the cause of death.
- Legal Action: The first appellant filed an FIR against Tanu’s father, brother, and relatives, leading to criminal proceedings under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
- Family’s Demand: Ziaul Rahman’s family sought to upgrade the charges to Section 302 IPC (murder).
2. Alleged Abetment of Suicide of Tanu (02.11.2022)
- On the same morning (02.11.2022), at around 8:00 AM, the appellants allegedly confronted Tanu at her home.
- They accused her of being responsible for Ziaul Rahman’s death, allegedly saying:“Because of you, our boy has died, why don’t you die too?”
- They also allegedly threatened her with legal action, stating they would file a case against her, get her arrested, and ensure she was humiliated in society.
- Alleged Impact:
- Two hours later (between 10:30 AM – 11:00 AM), Tanu committed suicide by hanging.
- Witnesses: The complainant (Tanu’s cousin), Sushil Singh, Anil, and Sunesh, claimed they heard the confrontation.
- Medical Report (Post-Mortem at 5:00 PM, 02.11.2022):
- Ligature marks on the neck
- Multiple abrasions on the neck and arms
- Cause of death: Asphyxia due to hanging
- Suspicious Delay in FIR:
- Although Tanu’s post-mortem was done at 5:00 PM (02.11.2022), the FIR was lodged more than 24 hours later (on 03.11.2022 at 5:07 PM).
Issues Before the Court
- Did the statements of the appellants constitute “instigation” or “abetment” as per Section 306 IPC?
- Was the police investigation one-sided, favoring the complainant’s version without considering other angles?
- Did the High Court err in refusing to quash the proceedings despite weak evidence?
- Should a fresh, independent investigation be conducted to determine the true circumstances of Tanu’s suicide?
Petitioner’s (Appellants’) Arguments
- No “Abetment” Under Section 306 IPC
- The alleged statements, even if true, do not constitute active instigation or provocation to suicide.
- The law requires a clear intent to push someone to suicide, which is absent here.
- Weaknesses in the Investigation
- The police did not consider other possible reasons for Tanu’s suicide, such as her grief over Ziaul Rahman’s death.
- The FIR was delayed by over 24 hours, despite immediate police involvement after her death.
- Witness statements were recorded much later (on 07.11.2022, 08.11.2022, and 22.11.2022), repeating the FIR’s claims without additional details.
- Precedents Against Conviction for Casual Statements
- Cited Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., where a remark like “Go and die” was deemed insufficient to prove abetment.
- Argued that similar cases had been quashed by the Supreme Court before.
Respondent’s (Prosecution’s) Arguments
- Direct Causal Link
- Tanu was directly threatened and humiliated just hours before her suicide.
- The emotional distress caused by the appellants’ words left her no choice but to take her life.
- Witness Statements Corroborate Allegations
- Multiple witnesses (Sushil Singh, Anil, and Sunesh) confirmed that the appellants verbally humiliated Tanu.
- High Court’s Findings
- The High Court ruled that a proximate link existed between the suicide and the alleged verbal abuse.
- It also noted that Tanu was hypersensitive and deeply distressed.
Court’s Legal Analysis
1. Abetment of Suicide Requires Direct Instigation
- Supreme Court Precedents (Swamy Prahaladdas, Madan Mohan Singh, and M. Mohan cases) clearly state that mere words do not amount to abetment unless they provoke the victim into taking extreme steps.
- A causal connection must be established – just being involved in an argument does not make a person criminally liable.
2. Investigation Was One-Sided
- The charge-sheet was based entirely on the complainant’s statements, without considering alternative explanations.
- No effort was made to investigate if Tanu was emotionally affected by Ziaul Rahman’s death.
3. Unexplained Delay in Filing FIR
- The police were aware of Tanu’s suicide on 02.11.2022, but did not register an FIR until 03.11.2022.
- Such delays usually indicate afterthoughts or manipulation.
Court’s Final Holding
- Proceedings Against Appellants Are Quashed
- The Supreme Court found the charges under Section 306 IPC legally unsustainable.
- The charge-sheet was dismissed, and all criminal proceedings against the appellants were quashed.
- Order for Reinvestigation by SIT
- The DGP, Uttar Pradesh, was ordered to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by a DIG-rank officer.
- The SIT must investigate all aspects of Tanu’s death, including whether she was traumatized due to her friend’s death.
- The SIT can re-register a new FIR if fresh evidence emerges.
- Next Hearing on April 15, 2025
- The Supreme Court will review the SIT’s findings in its next hearing.
Implications of the Judgment
- Strict legal standards for abetment of suicide reaffirmed.
- One-sided investigations will not be accepted.
- Independent probes will be ordered when needed.
- Higher burden on police to prove abetment cases.