A suicide note alone is not sufficient to establish abetment unless it is corroborated by other evidence, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Others v State of Gujarat [ 2025 INSC 322].
The deceased, in this case, left a suicide note specifying the name of the appellant responsible for abetting his suicide for allegedly blackmailing the deceased using his compromised photographs and videos with a female colleague. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetting the suicide of the deceased
The SC said that the authenticity of a suicide note must be proved, and the handwriting expert should be examined in court. The SC added that when the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the said expert.
The SC relied on the precedents such as Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618] and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605], and observed that instigation must involve goading, urging, or provoking the deceased to commit suicide, and mere harassment or differences are not sufficient to establish abetment unless there is a proximate act leading to suicide.
The SC says conviction under Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable 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 deceased to commit suicide.
Therefore, the SC set aside the conviction of the appellant because of the above reasons.
References
- Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Others v State of Gujarat [ 2025 INSC 322]
- Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618]
- Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605]
