PRAKASH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1160, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1160 : 2024 INSC 1020
Prakash and Others
v.
The State of Maharashtra and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 5543 of 2024)
20 December 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting 
the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was 
a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the 
mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month 
between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the commission 
of suicide.
Headnotes†
Penal Code – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Disputes 
between the victim, and her husband-appellant no.1 and 
in-laws – Victim tortured mentally and physically over 
demand of money at her matrimonial house – Victim started 
residing separately, at her paternal house with her child – 
Subsequently criminal case against the husband and in-laws 
under the 2005 Act – During pendency, mahalokadalat held 
during which appellants allegedly refused to cohabitate with 
the victim or accept her or her child or settle the proceedings 
initiated by victim – Month later, victim committed suicide – 
Accidental Death Report by brother of the deceased stating 
that his sister committed suicide by hanging herself – Five 
days later, complaint by the mother of deceased against the 
appellants – On basis thereof, FIR registered u/ss.306 and 
34 against the husband and in-laws, and chargesheet filed – 
Application seeking discharge from case by the
appellants – 
Rejected by the trial court – Said order upheld by the High 
Court – Correctness:
Held: There must be a close proximity between the positive act of 
instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide 
by the victim – Close proximity should be such as to create a 
*Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1161
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide  – 
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 – On facts, clear gap of over a month between the incident 
at the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide – Gap of 
over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the 
proximate link between the two acts, and render the instigation or 
incitement by the appellants, nugatory – Courts below erroneously 
accepted the prosecution story that the act of suicide by the 
deceased was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants 
at the mahalokadalat – In the Accidental Death Report lodged on 
the day of the incident, no mention about any involvement of the 
appellants in the suicidal death of the deceased and no mention 
about the incident that had occurred at the mahalokadalat – These 
facts alleged for the first time in the FIR lodged five days after 
the incident – Reasoning given by the High Court for refusal to 
discharge the appellants completely perfunctory – Prosecution 
failed to prima facie establish that the appellants had any intention 
to instigate or aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide – No 
doubt, a young woman of 25 years lost her life in an unfortunate 
incident, however, in
the absence of sufficient material to show that 
the appellants had intended by their words to push the deceased 
to commit suicide, continuation of criminal proceedings would 
result in an abuse of process of law – Thus, the orders passed by 
the courts below quashed and set aside – Protection of Women 
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 – s.227. [Paras 32-38]
Penal Code – ss.306 and 107 – Abetment of suicide – 
Interpretation of s.306 read with s.107 – Ingredients and 
principles of s.306 – Elucidated. [Paras 13-28]
Case Law Cited
Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, 
2023 INSC 1035 : (2024) 1 SCC 417 : ; Gurjit Singh v. State of 
Punjab, 2019 INSC 1281 : [2019] 14 SCR 232 : (2020) 14 SCC 
264; State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu and Others, 2019 INSC 
1164 : [2019] 13 SCR 489 : (2019) 10 SCC 188; Madan Mohan 
Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2010 INSC 521 : [2010] 10
1162
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628; Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi 
v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 INSC 534 : [2008] 6 SCR 1116 : 
(2008) 10 SCC 394 ; Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of 
M.P., 2002 INSC 250 : [2002] 3 SCR 668 : (2002) 5 SCC 371; 
S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, 2010 INSC 
506 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : (2010) 12 SCC 190; Jayedeepsinh 
Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat, 2024 INSC 
960 : [2024] 12 SCR 439 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679; Ramesh 
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 INSC 515 : [2001] Supp. 4 
SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618; Ude Singh and Others v. State of 
Haryana, 2019 INSC 810 : [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC 
301; Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 149 : [2024] 
2 SCR 830 : (2024) 3 SCC 573 – referred to.
List of Acts
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Penal 
Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Abetment of suicide; Direct or indirect acts of instigation; Clear 
nexus between suicide and instigation; Proximate to time of suicide; 
Intention to instigate suicide; Act of suicide; Direct result of the 
words uttered; Mahalokadalat; Commission of suicide; Tortured 
mentally and physically over demand of money; Application 
seeking discharge from case; Close proximity between positive 
act of instigation by accused person and commission of suicide 
by victim; Mens rea to abet commission of suicide; Sufficient time 
to dissolve
nexus or proximate link between two acts; Absence 
of sufficient material; Interpretation of s.306 read with s.107 IPC; 
Ingredients and principles of s.306 IPC.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
5543 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2022 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRWP No. 246 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Niteen V. Gaware, Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Vatsalya Vigya, Advs. 
for the Appellants.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1163
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Sourav Singh, 
Advs. for the Respondents. 
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 17th October 
2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition 
No. 246 of 2021, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the 
Writ Petition preferred by the present appellants. The Writ Petition had 
been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 24th December 
2020 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner, 
District Ahmednagar wherein the learned Assistant Sessions Judge 
had rejected the application preferred by the appellants seeking 
discharge from the charges punishable under Sections 306 and 34 
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,1 pending against the appellants 
before the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner2 in 
Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015.
3.	
The facts which lead to the present appeal are as under:-
3.1.	 On 20th March 2015, the Police Station, Ashvi, District 
Ahmednagar, received an Accidental Death Report (Khabar) 
by one Vikas Bhausaheb Sanap who stated that on the same 
day at about 10 a.m. his sister Jyoti Nagre,3 aged about 25 
years, had committed suicide by hanging herself from the iron 
pipe situated in the bathroom of her paternal
house where she 
had been residing for the past two years.
3.2.	 Subsequently, on 25th March 2015, Mrs. Sindhubai Bhausaheb 
Sanap (Respondent No.2), mother of the deceased, lodged a 
complaint at the said police station. According to the complaint, 
1	
For short, ‘the IPC’.
2	
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’.
3	
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’.
1164
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the deceased had been married to Prakash, Appellant No. 1, 
on 19th November 2009, after which she had given birth to twin 
sons. After marriage, disputes arose between the deceased and 
her husband and in-laws from time to time, with the complainant 
alleging that the deceased had been mentally and physically 
tortured at her matrimonial house. However, on the intervention 
of the complainant and her family, the disputes were patched 
up and the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home. 
Soon thereafter, owing to persisting acrimony at her matrimonial 
home, the deceased and Appellant No.1 started residing 
separately, away from the matrimonial home, in Lonikand, 
Pune. It was further alleged that on 8th August 2013, Appellant 
No.1 had physically abused the deceased over a demand of 
Rs.20 lakhs for the purchase of a new plot of land. After this 
incident, the deceased came to reside at her paternal house. 
Subsequently, a criminal case being Criminal M.A. No. 175 of 
2013 came to be filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 
First Class, Sangamner against the husband and in-laws of the 
deceased under Sections 12, 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of 
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During the pendency 
of the criminal case, a mahalokadalat was held in the court in 
Sangamner on 17th February 2015, which was attended by the 
complainant, the deceased and the present appellants, among 
others. The complainant
(Respondent No.2) alleged that on the 
said day, the present appellants told the deceased that they 
were not ready to reach a compromise in the matter and further 
that she would not be allowed to go back to her matrimonial 
house. The deceased was further advised by Appellant No.1 
to re-marry as he would not accept her or her children at the 
matrimonial house. Subsequent to this incident, the deceased 
would frequently say that she would commit suicide as her life 
no longer held any meaning. Thereafter, on 20th March 2015, 
the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from an 
iron pipe with the aid of a saree.
3.3.	 On the basis of the complaint, a First Information Report4 being 
Crime No.12 of 2015 was lodged under Sections 306 and 34 of 
the IPC against Prakash Pandurang Nagare (Appellant No.1), 
4	
For short, ‘FIR’
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1165
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
Pandurang Kundlik Nagare (Appellant No.2), the father-in-law 
of the deceased, and Pradip Pandurang Nagare (Appellant 
No.3), the brother-in-law of the deceased at the aforementioned 
police station.
3.4.	 Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to 
be filed on 28th September 2015.
3.5.	 Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed an application 
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19735 
before the trial court, praying to be discharged from the said 
case. The trial court, by its order dated 24th December 2020, 
rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that there was 
sufficient ground to proceed against the appellants. 
3.6.	 Being aggrieved further, the appellants preferred a Criminal Writ 
Petition before the High Court for setting aside of the aforesaid 
order of the trial court. The High Court, vide the impugned 
judgment and order, dismissed the writ petition finding it to be 
devoid of merit.
3.7.	 Being aggrieved thereby, this present appeal.
4.	
This Court while issuing notice on 30th January 2023 had stayed the 
criminal proceedings bearing Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 pending 
before the trial court, until further orders.
5.	
We have heard Mr. Niteen V. Gaware, learned counsel appearing for 
the appellants and Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel 
and Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing on 
behalf of the
respondent-State of Maharashtra.
6.	
Mr. Gaware, learned counsel, submitted that there was a delay of five 
days in lodging the FIR. He submitted that although an Accidental 
Death Report (Khabar) had been filed on the day of the incident 
by the brother of the deceased, there is not a whisper about any 
harassment caused by the appellants to the deceased. It also did 
not disclose any involvement of or instigation by the appellants which 
might have led the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted 
that the FIR was an afterthought and no satisfactory explanation has 
been offered to justify the inordinate delay. 
5	
For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’
1166
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7.	
Mr. Gaware further submitted that it is not a case of prosecution 
that the appellants spoke in such a manner which would amount to 
abetment of suicide. He further submitted that the appellants met 
the deceased only on the day of the Mahalokadalat which was held 
on 17th February 2014 where Appellant No. 1 is alleged to have told 
her that he did not wish to cohabitate with the deceased any longer 
and he did not wish to settle the proceedings initiated by her. Merely 
because the deceased was depressed about her situation, it would 
not be enough to convict the appellants, particularly since, prima 
facie, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled.
8.	
Mr. Gaware submitted that the deceased had been residing separately 
from the appellants since 8th August 2013. In the intervening period 
between the date of separation and the date of the incident, the 
appellants had interacted with the deceased only on one occasion 
that is on the date of the Mahalokadalat which was held on 17th 
February 2014. He submitted that the FIR wrongly mentions the 
date of the mahalokadalat to be 17th February 2015. It is submitted 
that the deceased committed suicide after over a year had passed. 
However, the courts below did not consider this aspect or look into 
the roznama of court proceedings which clearly showed the date on 
which the mahalokadalat had been held. Therefore, he submitted that 
in view of the time gap between the
alleged meeting and the date 
of suicide, there is no immediate instigation or abetment to commit 
suicide which can be attributed to the appellants. 
9.	
Mr. Gaware placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the 
cases of Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and 
Others,6 Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab,7 State of West Bengal 
v. Indrajit Kundu and Others,8 Madan Mohan Singh v. State of 
Gujarat and Another,9 Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State 
of Maharashtra10 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of 
M.P.11. He submitted in view of the material placed on record and 
6	
2023 INSC 1035 : (2024) 1 SCC 417
7	
2019 INSC 1281 : [2019] 14 SCR 232 : (2020) 14 SCC 264
8	
2019 INSC 1164 : [2019] 13 SCR 489 : (2019) 10 SCC 188
9	
2010 INSC 521 : [2010] 10 SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628 
10	
2008 INSC 534 : [2008] 6 SCR 1116 : (2008) 10 SCC 394
11	
2002 INSC 250 : [2002] 3 SCR 668 : (2002) 5 SCC 371
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1167
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
the authorities cited, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the 
appellants deserve to be discharged of all charges.
10.	 Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned counsel, submitted 
that no interference is warranted in the concurrent findings of the 
trial court and the High Court. He submitted that there is sufficient 
material against the appellants to proceed against them. He further 
submitted that in view of the allegations levelled against the appellants 
and the evidence collected by the investigating agency, it is not a fit 
case to allow this appeal. Mr. Dharmadhikari, therefore, prayed for 
the dismissal of this appeal.
11.	 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the 
material placed on record.
12.	 The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for consideration are as 
under: 
“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.
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; or 
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
1168
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates 
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
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 necessarily 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.
15.	 The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions 
of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or 
intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring 
a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act
of abetment would 
require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another 
person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of 
the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a 
charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment 
also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the 
accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to 
commit suicide. 
16.	 This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan 
and Another,12 had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 
306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential for abetment, 
as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. It observed as follows:
“16. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the 
Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known 
12	
2010 INSC 506 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : (2010) 12 SCC 190
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1169
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
and requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” 
means “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, 
a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, 
irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving 
his object of killing himself.
………..
18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, 
considering that the successful offender is beyond the 
reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 
309 IPC.
……….
21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed 
reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh v. 
State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 
1157] In Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 
SCC (Cri) 1157] the allegations levelled were as under: 
(SCC p. 731, para 1)
“1. … My mother-in-law and husband and sister-
in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed 
me. They beat me and abused me. My husband 
Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has 
illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because 
of these reasons and being harassed I want to 
die by burning.”
The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a 
definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of 
abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. 
According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant 
under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the 
aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased
is unsustainable in law.
………..
23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 
1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that: (SCC 
p. 90, para 17)
1170
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“17. … The court should be extremely careful in 
assessing the facts and circumstances of each 
case and the evidence adduced in the trial for 
the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted 
out to the victim had in fact induced her to end 
the life by committing suicide. If it [appears] to 
the court that a victim committing suicide was 
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord 
and differences in domestic life quite common 
to the society to which the victim belonged and 
such petulance, discord and differences were 
not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced 
individual in a given society to commit suicide, 
the conscience of the court should not be 
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused 
charged of abetting the offence of suicide should 
be found guilty.”
24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. 
of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 
367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. 
The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words 
“instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there 
should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the 
doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability 
pattern is different from the other. Each person has his 
own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is 
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing 
with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the 
basis of its own
facts and circumstances.
25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating 
a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a 
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused 
to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot 
be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio 
of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to 
convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a 
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an 
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1171
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
suicide seeing no option and that act must have been 
intended to push the deceased into such a position that 
he committed suicide.”
17.	 This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of 
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a 
thing. Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the accused 
to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot 
be sustained. This Court further observed that the intention of the 
legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear 
that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there 
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also 
requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit 
suicide seeing no other option and that act must have been intended 
to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 
However, this Court has cautioned that since each person reacts 
differently to the same provocation depending on a variety of factors, 
it is impossible to lay down a straightjacket formula to deal with such 
cases. Therefore, every such case has to be decided on the basis 
of its own facts and circumstances.
18.	 More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda 
and Others v. State of Gujarat,13 this Court has relied on S.S. 
Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply 
be
presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly 
discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing 
abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention 
to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. 
This Court observed as follows:
“18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a 
well-established legal principle that the presence of clear 
mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. 
Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an 
accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must 
demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that 
led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of 
mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must 
13	
2024 INSC 960 : [2024] 12 SCR 439 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679
1172
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the 
foundational requirement for establishing abetment under 
the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a 
deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute 
to the act of suicide.”
19.	 It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial 
element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a similar nature, 
this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,14 
laid down the parameters of what would be constituted to be an act 
of instigation. This Court observed as follows:-
“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 a 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.”
20.	 It could thus be seen that this Court observed
that instigation is 
to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an 
act”. It has been held that in order 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, however, a 
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of 
being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court 
went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion 
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be 
said to be instigation.
14	
2001 INSC 515 : [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1173
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
21.	 Relying on the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), this 
Court in the case of Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana15 
observed as follows:
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must 
be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the 
commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that 
the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the 
context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a 
vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes 
of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case 
of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be 
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of 
incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of 
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased 
by another person would not suffice unless there be such 
action on the part of the accused which compels the person 
to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to 
be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person 
has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, 
could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances 
of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted 
commission of suicide by another, the consideration would 
be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act 
of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the
decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge 
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the 
persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive 
and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily 
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to 
commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused 
guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if 
the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of 
conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased 
perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the 
case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. 
15	
2019 INSC 810 : [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC 301
1174
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-
esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually 
draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be 
held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens 
rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be 
examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of 
the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such 
nature where the accused intended nothing more than 
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may 
fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, 
if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased 
by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was 
provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of 
suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of 
human behaviour, each case is required to be examined 
on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding 
factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the 
accused and the deceased.
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be 
affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact 
of one›s action on the mind of another carries several 
imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently 
by different persons; and so far a particular person›s 
reaction to any other human›s action is concerned, there 
is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess 
the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the 
question of
harassment of a girl, many factors are to 
be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or 
urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the 
ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl 
could also vary for a variety of factors, including those 
of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, 
each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts 
and circumstances.”
22.	 It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases of 
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or 
indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It has been 
held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1175
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex 
attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent 
and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission 
of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of 
harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice 
unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels 
the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such 
an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. 
It was further clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of 
the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to 
the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It was further held that 
if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused 
intended nothing more than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a 
particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide, 
however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased 
by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a 
particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held 
that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and 
could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with 
differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt 
with its own facts and circumstances.
23.	 In the case of
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), the appellant 
before this Court was charged with having abetted the suicide by 
his brother-in-law (sister’s husband). The prosecution story was that 
there were strained relations between the deceased and his wife 
who at the material time was staying with the appellant therein. On 
25th July, 1998 the deceased went to the appellant to bring back his 
wife. There was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased 
who came back alone. The deceased told his brothers and other 
acquaintances that the appellant had threatened and abused him 
by using filthy words. On 27th July, 1998 the deceased was found 
dead. The deceased left a suicide note which showed his disturbed 
state of mind but otherwise he blamed the appellant for the suicide. 
The appellant’s petition for quashing of the charge-sheet filed under 
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the High Court which led him 
to file an appeal before this Court which came to be allowed. While 
taking note of the disturbed state of mind of the deceased as was 
evident from the suicide note and the lack of intention on the part 
of the accused to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased,
1176
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the Court held that there was a time gap of 48 hours between the 
abusive language being used and the commission of suicide. As such, 
owing to the passage of 48 hours, giving the deceased enough time 
to reflect, there was no proximate link between the words uttered 
and the act of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
“8. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) 
SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943] the appellant was charged 
for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that 
the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked to 
the deceased “to go and die”. This Court was of the view 
that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 
“to go and die” were not even prima facie enough to 
instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 
731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the appellant was charged for 
an offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon 
the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as 
under: (SCC p. 731, para 1)
“My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-
law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed 
me. They beat me and abused me. My husband 
Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has 
illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because 
of these reasons and being harassed I want to 
die by burning.”
10. This Court, considering the definition of “abetment” 
under Section 107 IPC, found that the charge and 
conviction of the
appellant for an offence under Section 306 
is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment 
of the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the 
ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of 
the deceased.
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 
SCC 618] this Court was considering the charge framed 
and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC 
on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive 
Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1177
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband 
and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her 
husband who had said that she could go wherever she 
wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene 
on herself and had set herself on fire. Acquitting the 
accused this Court said: (SCC p. 620)
“A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without 
intending the consequences to actually follow 
cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires 
to the court that a victim committing suicide was 
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord 
and differences in domestic life quite common 
to the society to which the victim belonged and 
such petulance, discord and differences were 
not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced 
individual in a given society to commit suicide, 
the conscience of the court should not be 
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused 
charged for abetting the offence of suicide should 
be found guilty.”
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts 
below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story 
that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of 
the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-1998 wherein it 
is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language 
and had reportedly told the deceased “to go and die”. 
For this, courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, 
brother of the deceased, made under Section
161 CrPC 
when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from 
the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant 
had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The 
statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 
CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going 
through the statement, we find that he has not stated that 
the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked 
him “to go and die”. Even if we accept the prosecution 
story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and 
die”, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of
1178
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes incitement 
or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action 
or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, 
therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 
It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a 
quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken 
to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and 
emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said 
to have been told to the deceased were on 25-7-1998 
ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging 
on 27-7-1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken 
the abusive language seriously, he had enough time 
in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it 
cannot be said that the abusive language, which had 
been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998 drove the 
deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased 
on 27-7-1998 is not proximate to the abusive language 
uttered by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that 
the deceased committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would 
itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of 
the quarrel taken place on 25-7-1998 when it is alleged 
that the appellant had used the abusive language and 
also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had 
escaped notice of the courts below.
………….
14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show 
that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One 
plausible reason could be that the deceased was
without 
any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in 
drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt 
Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the 
suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the 
handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt 
Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement 
under Section 161 CrPC before the investigation officer. 
She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking 
wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that 
on 26-7-1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1179
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
condition and was abusing her and other members of the 
family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that 
the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant 
had taken place on 25-7-1998 and if the deceased 
came back to the house again on 26-7-1998, it cannot 
be said that the suicide by the deceased was the 
direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 
25-7-1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances 
independently, we are clearly of the view that the 
ingredients of “abetment” are totally absent in the 
instant case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It 
is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always 
remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge 
that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly 
appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of 
his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had 
ensued on 25-7-1998 where the appellant is stated to have 
used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials 
on record and facts and circumstances of the case into 
consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion 
that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is 
responsible for his death.”
 (emphasis supplied)
24.	 It could thus be seen that this Court held that both the courts below 
had erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by 
the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had
taken 
place on 25th July 1998 wherein it was alleged that the appellant 
therein had used abusive language and had reportedly told the 
deceased ‘to go and die’. It was held that even if one accepts the 
prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and 
die’, that itself did not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. This 
Court held that it was common knowledge that the words uttered 
in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment could not be taken to 
be uttered with mens rea. It has been held further that the alleged 
abusive words were said to have been told to the deceased on 25th 
July 1998 during a quarrel and the deceased was found hanging on 
27th July, 1998. This Court held that if the deceased had taken the 
abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think
1180
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
over and reflect and therefore, it could not be said that the abusive 
language which had been used by the appellant on 25th July 1998 
drove the deceased to commit suicide on 27th July 1998. It has 
been held that the suicide by the deceased was not proximate to 
the abusive language used two days prior. Additionally this Court 
held that a plain reading of the suicide note made it clear that the 
deceased was in great stress and depressed and the suicide note 
also clearly suggested that it was not the handiwork of a man with 
a sound mind and sense. As such, this Court held that there was 
no material to establish that the accused had abetted the suicide 
committed by the deceased. 
25.	 Relying on the decision in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh 
Sengar (supra), this Court in the case of Gurjit Singh (supra) set 
aside the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC as it was clear 
from the evidence on record that there was a time gap of about two 
months between the last visit of the deceased to her parents with 
regard to the illegal demand for money by the accused-appellant 
and the date of commission of suicide by the deceased. As such, 
this Court held that there was nothing on record to show that there 
was a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the 
illegal demand made by the accused-appellant. This Court observed 
as follows:
“36. It could further be seen from the evidence on 
record that the time gap
between the last visit of the 
deceased to her parents with regard to the illegal 
demand and the date of commission of suicide is 
about two months. As such, there is nothing on record 
to show that there was a proximate nexus between 
the commission of suicide and the illegal demand 
made by the appellant. In Sanju v. State of M.P. [Sanju 
v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 
1141] this Court found that there was time gap of 48 
hours between the accused telling the deceased “to 
go and die” and the deceased “committing suicide”. 
As such, this Court held that there was no material 
to establish that the accused had abetted the suicide 
committed by the deceased.”
 (emphasis supplied)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1181
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
26.	 Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or 
incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of 
the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified 
on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the 
act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to 
each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide 
by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the 
accused person. 
27.	 This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra) reiterated that the 
act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity 
that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which 
the person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held 
that the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit 
suicide had occurred two weeks prior and even the suicide note had 
been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased 
committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act 
had been done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity 
to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
“11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third 
respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, 
it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated 
the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the
payment 
of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her 
husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him 
by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly 
happened more than two weeks before the date of 
suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done 
by the appellants in close proximity to the date of 
suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts 
of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit 
suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent 
for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence 
punishable under Section 306 IPC was not made out 
against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their 
prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process 
of law.”
(emphasis supplied)
1182
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
28.	 This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana,16 
observed as follows:-
“20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano 
Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC 
OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred 
decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 
306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45)
“45. … It is also to be borne in mind that in 
cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must 
be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement 
to the commission of suicide. 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 
306IPC is not sustainable.”
(emphasis supplied) 
29.	 Having discussed the law on the subject, we now proceed to consider 
the facts of the present case in view of the established principles.
30.	 As per the version of the complainant, the following facts have 
emerged:
i.	
Appellant No. 1 got married to the deceased on 19th November 
2009.
ii.	
Disputes arose thereafter, and the parties started residing 
separately from 8th August 2013 with the deceased residing at 
her paternal house with her child.
iii.	
A mahalokadalat was held at the court in Sangamner on 17th 
February 2015 during which the appellants are alleged to have 
refused to cohabitate with the deceased or accept her
or her 
child at her matrimonial house or settle the proceedings initiated 
by the deceased.
iv.	
On 20th March 2015, the deceased committed suicide.
16	
2024 INSC 149 : [2024] 2 SCR 830 : (2024) 3 SCC 573
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1183
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
31.	 In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), this Court, 
under similar circumstances, had quashed the chargesheet under 
Section 306 of the IPC against the accused-appellant. A factor that 
had weighed with the Court in the said case was that there was a time 
gap of 48 hours being the alleged instigation and the commission of 
suicide. This Court held that the deceased was a victim of his own 
conduct, unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued between him 
and the appellant, 48 hours prior to the commission of his suicide. 
32.	 In the case at hand, taking the allegations in the FIR at face value, 
the incident at the mahalokadalat had occurred on 17th February 
2015, while the deceased had committed suicide on 20th March 
2015. There is a clear gap of over a month between the incident at 
the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide. We therefore find 
that the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution 
story that the act of suicide by the deceased was a direct result of 
the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat.
33.	 We also find that the date of occurrence of the mahalokadalat is 
disputed. The appellants have vehemently argued before the trial 
court and the High Court that the mahalokadalat had not been held 
on the 17th February 2015 but instead had been held about a year 
earlier, and that the date of the mahalokadalat as mentioned in
the 
FIR and in the statements of the witnesses, is factually incorrect. 
If this submission is to be accepted, the time gap between the two 
incidents would widen even further. 
34.	 However, we do not wish to go into that issue. Even if we take 
the date of the mahalokadalat to be 17th February 2015 to be the 
factually correct one, there is enough gap between the two incidents 
to render the instigation or incitement by the appellants, nugatory. 
The cardinal principle of the subject-matter at hand is that there must 
be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the 
accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim. The 
close proximity should be such as to create a clear nexus between 
the act of instigation and the act of suicide. As was held in the case 
of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), if the deceased had 
taken the words of the appellants seriously, a time gap between 
the two incidents would have given enough time to the deceased to 
think over and reflect on the matter. As such, a gap of over a month
1184
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the proximate link 
between the two acts.
35.	 Apart from that, although an Accidental Death Report was lodged 
on the day of the incident by the deceased’s brother, there is no 
mention about any involvement of the appellants in the suicidal death 
of the deceased. Further, there is no mention about the incident that 
had occurred at the mahalokadalat which had put the deceased in a 
state of depression such that she frequently spoke about committing 
suicide. These facts are alleged for the first time in the FIR which 
was lodged five days after the incident. 
36.	 We are of the considered view that the reasoning given by the High 
Court for refusal to discharge the appellants is completely perfunctory. 
The High Court observed that there is no allegation about any 
harassment or cruelty meted out by the appellants to the deceased 
in the Accidental Death Report, however, held that the allegations 
in the FIR could not be overlooked and the Accidental Death Report 
and the statements made in the Accidental Death enquiry would be 
a matter of trial. The High Court also took note of the disputed date 
of the mahalokadalat but held that incorrect mentioning of the date 
of the mahalokadalat in the FIR would not be a ground to discharge 
the appellants, considering the state of mind of the complainant, the 
deceased’s mother. 
37.	 We further find that the prosecution has failed to
prima facie establish 
that the appellants had any intention to instigate or aid or abet the 
deceased to commit suicide. No doubt that a young woman of 25 
years has lost her life in an unfortunate incident. However, in the 
absence of sufficient material to show that the appellants had intended 
by their words to push the deceased into such a position that she 
was left with no other option but to commit suicide, continuation of 
criminal proceedings against the appellants would result in an abuse 
of process of law and as such, we are inclined to allow the appeal.
38.	 In the result, we pass the following order:-
i.	
The present appeal is allowed.
ii.	
The impugned judgment and order of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad passed on 17th

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1185
Prakash and Others v.  
The State of Maharashtra and Another
October 2022 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 246 of 2021 and the 
order of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner dated 24th 
December, 2020 in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 are quashed 
and set aside; and
iii.	
The appellants are discharged from Sessions Case No. 75 of 
2015 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner. Their 
bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
39.	 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain