It must be stated before stating anything else that in a most significant development, we saw how the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala in Crl. Rev. Pet No. 1224 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:KER:6717 that came up for admission on 21.1.2026 and then was pronounced finally on 28.01.2026 minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that saying go away and die in the heat of a quarrel does not amount to the criminal offence of abetment of suicide.
It is worth underscoring that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice C Pratheep Kumar who authored this notable judgment most brilliantly minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that to establish the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the intention of the accused is the key decisive factor, not the feelings of the deceased person. It must be noted that the judgment was passed on a petition that had been moved by a man accused of abetting the suicide of his wife. Of course, we thus see that the Kerala High Court finally set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court of Kasargod acquitting the accused who was convicted earlier and explaining in detail the pragmatic reasons for doing so. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this most commendable, courageous, creditworthy and cogent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice C Pratheep Kumar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The 1st accused in S.C.427/2024 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kasaragod, arising out of crime No.577/2023 of Melparamba police station filed this petition under Section 438 & 442 of the BNSS, challenging Annexure-A4 order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting his application for discharge.
As we see, the Bench then observes in para 2 that:
As per Annexure-A4 order, the learned Sessions Judge decided to frame charge against the petitioner under Sections 306 and 204 of IPC.
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that:
The prosecution case is that the petitioner had an extra marital relationship with the 2nd accused, who is now no more. When the 2nd accused came to know that the petitioner was about to marry another woman, she inquired about the same with the petitioner. Enraged by the query made by the 2nd accused, the petitioner scolded the deceased saying go away and die. It is alleged that, the deceased who was mentally disturbed due to the above act of the petitioner, jumped into a well, along with her daughter aged 51/2 and committed suicide on 15.9.2023 between 5.10 a.m. and 6.00 a.m.
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 6 that:
As per the prosecution case, the deceased was already married to another person. The petitioner had an extra marital relationship with her. When the deceased came to know that the petitioner was going to marry another woman, she called the petitioner over the phone and inquired about his decision to marry another woman. It appears that, in the ensuing wordy altercation the petitioner scolded the deceased and said go away and die. According to the learned counsel, such a comment made by the petitioner in a heat of passion was without any intention to abet the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out.
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 7 that:
Section 306 IPC reads as follows :-
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.
It is worth noting that the Bench while citing the relevant provisions of IPC and so also relevant case laws notes in para 8 that:
Section 107 IPC defines the term abetment as instigating, conspiring or intentionally aiding someone to commit an offence. In the decision in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., 2002 KHC 1270, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court held in paragraph 12 that :
....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 ‘instigation’. The word ‘instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable 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 in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional....
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 9 while citing the relevant case law noting that:
In the decision in Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 KHC 3306, the Apex Court held that, words which are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people does not amount to abetment of suicide.
While citing yet another relevant case law, the Bench states in para 10 that, In the decision in Cyriac v. S.I.of Police, 2005 KHC 1021 in paragraph 17 and 18 this Court held as follows:
17. From the discussion already made by me, I hold as follows: The act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts consequence of suicide. Even if the words uttered by the accused or his conduct in public are sufficient to demean or humiliate the deceased and even to drive him to suicide, such acts will not amount to instigation or abetment of commission of suicide, unless it is established that the accused intended by his acts, consequence of a suicide. It is not enough if the acts of the accused cause persuasion in the mind of the deceased to commit suicide.
18. An indirect influence or an oblique impact which the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the mind of the deceased and which drove him to suicide will not be sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide. A fatal impulse or an ill-fated thought of the deceased, however unfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot unfortunately, touch the issue. Those cannot fray the fabric of the provision contained in S.306 IPC. In short, it is not what the deceased ‘felt’, but what the accused ‘intended’ by his act which is more important in this context. Of course, the deceased’s frail psychology which forced him to the suicide also may become relevant, but it is only after establishing the requisite intention of accused.
Most significantly, most rationally, most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the real cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
Therefore, what is important is the intention of the accused and not what is felt by the deceased. In the instant case also, the words, go away and die made by the petitioner was in the midst of a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased, in a heat of passion without having any intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide and as such, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out. Since the allegations do not constitute the offence under S.306 IPC, the offence under S.204 IPC also will not be attracted. Therefore, Annexure-A4 order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by which he decided to frame charge against the petitioner under S.306 and S.204 IPC is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is liable to be discharged of those offences.
Finally, the Bench then draws the curtains of this robust judgment by directing and holding in para 12 that:
In the result, this Crl. Revision Petition is allowed. Annexure-A4 order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The petitioner is discharged of the offences punishable under Ss.306 and 204 of IPC, under Section 438 & 442 of the BNSS.
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Kerala High Court has made it indubitably clear that over and above everything else, what truly matters in convicting or acquitting the accused is the intention of the accused which truly establishes the abetment of suicide and not what is felt by the deceased. We thus see that the petitioner has very rightly been discharged from the offences with which he was charged by the Kerala High Court. No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
