‘Refusal to Marry Not Enough’: SC Quashes Suicide Abetment Case
Supreme Court rules that a breakup followed by suicide cannot automatically amount to abetment without evidence of instigation or intent.
GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 9th Oct: The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against six people accused of abetting a woman’s suicide after her alleged lover refused to marry her, holding that a refusal to marry following a consensual relationship does not, by itself, constitute abetment to suicide.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran set aside proceedings pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kushaiguda, Telangana’s Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The Court found no material establishing that the accused had instigated the woman to take her own life.
The case arose after the woman, who had reportedly been living with the first accused for around three months, died by suicide. Her siblings alleged that she took the extreme step after he refused to marry her.
According to the prosecution, the relationship was consensual and the woman had been living at the accused’s house. The allegations also included claims that his friend had spoken ill of her, while his sister and parents had opposed the relationship. The prosecution further alleged that the sister’s prospective bridegroom had objected to the relationship, saying he would not marry her if the first accused married the woman.
The FIR was registered on the basis of a statement given by the deceased woman’s sister.
Court Finds No Evidence of Instigation
In its order, the Bench noted that the woman had called her eldest sister before her death and told her that the first accused had refused to marry her. However, the Court said the material on record did not establish that any of the accused had instigated her to commit suicide.
“We are unable to find any instigation by the accused/appellants to drive the victim to death by suicide. It was neither intended nor can it be said to be abetment,” the Bench observed.
The Court said that even if the informant’s allegations were accepted in full, the case at its highest involved a refusal to marry followed by the woman’s suicide. Such a sequence, it stressed, could not automatically establish criminal responsibility for abetment.
“People react differently to situations, and if a breakup ends up with suicide, it cannot always be termed an abetment to suicide,” the Supreme Court said.
The Bench further held that the refusal to marry was not shown to have been intended to drive the woman to suicide. Nor, it said, could the accused be presumed to have known that the refusal would lead her to take her life.
The Court also questioned why the woman had been taken away from the first accused’s house when the relationship was consensual and, according to the prosecution’s account, had been accepted by his family.
The Bench further noted that the woman had later informed her eldest sister of her intention to end her life, but no steps were taken to avert the threatened suicide. Taking the circumstances into account, it concluded that the prosecution could not be sustained on the allegations presented.
“We are unable to sustain the prosecution initiated against the accused on such frivolous allegations, and we quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2024,” the Bench said.
The Supreme Court directed that the accused be released forthwith if they were in custody, unless required in another case. It also ordered that their bail bonds be cancelled if they were already on bail.
