LexLAXMI DAS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 825 : 2025 INSC 86 Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017) 21 January 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant, can be charged with abetment of suicide of the deceased, under Section 306 of the Penal Code (IPC). Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 & s.107 – Abetment to Suicide – Instigation – Requirements to prove abetment of suicide – Explained – Charges quashed: Held: When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide – After referring to Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701, Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2024 INSC 1020, Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017) 7 SCC 780, it was held that the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court are not correct – Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet and the witness statements, are taken to be correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the Appellant – The acts of the Appellant are too remote and indirect to constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC – There is no allegation against the Appellant of a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing suicide – There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC – As such, the charges under Section 306 & 107 IPC were quashed. [Paras 8-15] Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment to suicide – Instigation of suicide – Prerequisites: * Author 826 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Held: By referring to Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017) 7 SCC 780, it was noted that to satisfy the requirement of instigation, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out 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 – A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation – It was noted that a mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. Case Law Cited Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2024] 7 SCR 1031 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701; Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 INSC 1020; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618 – referred to. Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017) 7 SCC 780 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Abetment of Suicide; Instigation; Mens Rea; Proximity. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017 From the Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2014 and 23.06.2014 of the High Court of Calcutta in CRR No. 1560 and 2012 Appearances for Parties Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Mrinalini Mukherjee, Advs. for the Appellant. [2025] 1 S.C.R. 827 Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms. Astha Sharma, Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Ms. Shriya Mishra, M/s. Plr Chambers And Co., Subhasish Bhowmick, Ms. Manisha Pandey, Shubhankar, M.K. Rathor, Rahul Kushwaha, Reegan S Bel, Ashutosh Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Satish Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the accused Appellant-Smt. Laxmi Das challenging the impugned order dated 13.06.2014 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in Criminal Revisional Application, being CRR No. 1560 of 2012, along with an application for quashing, being CRAN No. 1946 of 2013. By this order, the High Court has quashed the chargesheet as only against Dilip Das/Accused No. 3 and Subrata Das/Accused No. 2, while rejecting the application preferred by the Appellant/Accused No. 4. 2. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.