The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a Punjab lawyer accused of abetting the suicide of a woman advocate, stating that his refusal to marry her could not, by itself, amount to abetment
under the law.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, delivering the order on October 27, quashed a 2018 FIR registered against Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny at Chheharta Police Station, Amritsar, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case concerned the death of a woman government advocate in Amritsar, who was found unconscious at her residence on November 6, 2016, after allegedly consuming poison. She was taken to hospital but succumbed the same night. Her mother subsequently filed a complaint alleging that Singh, also a government advocate, had emotionally deceived and betrayed her daughter, driving her to suicide.
According to the FIR, Singh had visited the family in 2015 and expressed his wish to marry the deceased. However, he later backed out, reportedly due to opposition from his family. The deceased’s mother stated that her daughter took the extreme step after being disheartened by Singh’s refusal to go ahead with the marriage.
Two days after lodging the FIR, the complainant recorded a supplementary statement before the police, adding allegations of physical and mental exploitation by Singh. She claimed that her daughter had confided that Singh had developed relations with her on the pretext of marriage and that, when confronted, he told her to “do whatever she wanted” and expressed indifference even when she said she might end her life.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the supplementary statement was a clear improvement over the original version and could not form the basis for a criminal trial. “Even if the prosecution’s case is accepted as it stands, no ingredient necessary to constitute the offence of abetment under Section 306 IPC is made out,” the bench observed.
The judges noted that while there was emotional intimacy between the two, the evidence did not show any direct act of instigation or intent to provoke the deceased into taking her life. The court emphasised that abetment requires an element of mens rea and an active act or instigation from the accused leading the victim to suicide.
“It is very sad that a young girl took the extreme step of ending her life. One sensitive moment took away her life. However, as judges, we are obliged to decide the matter on the basis of evidence,” the court said. “Mere refusal to marry, even if it causes pain, does not amount to instigation”.
The court cited its earlier judgment in Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan to reaffirm the principle that abetment involves a positive act of incitement or aid. “Without such direct involvement, conviction cannot be sustained,” it reiterated.
Finding no material to sustain the charge, the court opined that putting the accused on trial would be “nothing short of travesty of justice”. It therefore allowed Singh’s appeal, quashing the FIR and all proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
