Supreme Court Quashes Abetment Charges, Orders Reinvestigation: Flawed Probe, Lack of Intent, and Need for Thorough Investigation Highlighted

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: AYYUB vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

Citation: 2025 INSC 168 (Reportable)

Background of the Case

This case originates from a suspected relationship between Ziaul Rahman, son of the first appellant Ayyub, and Tanu, the cousin sister of respondent no. 2, Vijay.

First Information Reports

On 02.11.2022, Ayyub filed FIR No. 366, alleging that Bhuru @ Janeshwar, Maneshwar Saini, Priyanshu, and Shivam assaulted his son, Ziaul Rahman, leading to his death. The cause of death was "shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries". Subsequently, on 03.11.2022, Vijay filed FIR No. 367, accusing Ayyub and others of abetting Tanu's suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegation was that the appellants had visited Tanu and said, “because of you our boy has died, why you do not die,” further humiliating and threatening her.

Tanu's Death

Tanu allegedly committed suicide on 02.11.2022, between 10:30 am and 11:00 am. A General Diary entry was made at 1:14 pm, and a post-mortem was conducted at 5:00 pm the same day. The cause of death was "Asphyxia as the result of ante-mortem hanging". The police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants on 02.05.2023 under Section 306 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offense and issued summons on 17.06.2023.

High Court Decision

The High Court declined to quash the proceedings, stating a proximate link existed between the appellants’ actions and Tanu’s suicide. It also noted Tanu's hypersensitivity as a contributing factor.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings against the appellants. The court highlighted the inadequate and one-sided police investigation. The court observed that the police had simply parroted the contents of the FIR in the charge-sheet and had not explored other possibilities, including that Tanu’s death might have been influenced by the death of her friend Ziaul Rahman.

Lack of Abetment

The court emphasized that for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be a specific intent and direct or indirect acts of incitement as defined in Section 107 IPC. The court referred to precedents, including Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P., where the remark “go and die” was not considered sufficient for abetment. The alleged utterance by the appellants did not constitute abetment to suicide. The court found that the statement made by the accused was not of such a nature that it would leave the deceased with no alternative but to end her life.

Concerns Regarding Investigation

The Supreme Court raised concerns about the investigation, noting that it was “unidimensional” and that the police accepted the complainant's version as the "gospel truth". The court also pointed out the delayed registration of the FIR concerning Tanu’s death, even though the post-mortem was conducted the same day, and the delay in recording the statements of the witnesses. The court expressed suspicion about the one-sided, partial, and inimical investigation.

Supreme Court Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellants in the case (Crime No. 367 of 2022). The Court ordered a reinvestigation into Tanu's death by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG). The SIT was authorized to treat the FIR No. 367 as an investigation into an unnatural death and was granted the liberty to re-register the FIR if deemed appropriate. The SIT is required to submit its report to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover within two months. The court clarified that the observations made were solely for quashing the proceedings and that the reinvestigation should be carried out independently.

Rationale

The reasoning given by the Judges was as follows:

  1. The police investigation was inadequate, superficial and one-sided.
  2. The charge sheet merely reiterated the contents of the FIR.
  3. The statements of the witnesses were recorded belatedly and “parroted the FIR”.
  4. The police did not explore other possibilities and angles related to Tanu’s death.
  5. The alleged utterances by the appellants, even if true, do not constitute abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
  6. There was no specific intention to incite Tanu to commit suicide.
  7. The circumstances indicated a possible element of desperation to implicate the appellants.

Excerpt

“We are today left with the one sided version of the complainant R-2. Was there anything more sinister?”

“The charge-sheet, as it stands, appears to have proceeded in an unidimensional manner by accepting the version of the complainant (R-2) and his family members as the gospel truth.”

“The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased Tanu with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.”

"Reliance of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. belatedly on 07.11.2022, 08.11.2022 and 22.11.2022, only reinforces out suspicion viz. one-sided, partial and inimical investigation."

“The Director General of Police, Law and Order, State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer of the level of Deputy Inspector General of Police to investigate the unnatural death of Tanu D/o Janeshwar”

Points to Remember

  1. Section 306 of the IPC deals with abetment of suicide and requires a specific intention to incite the victim to commit suicide.
  2. Mere words spoken in anger or frustration do not automatically amount to abetment of suicide.
  3. The investigation must be thorough, unbiased, and comprehensive, exploring all angles and possibilities.
  4. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of considering the context of the events and the overall circumstances, and not merely isolated incidents.
  5. A charge sheet should not merely repeat the contents of the FIR but should reflect a thorough investigation.
  6. Delay in registering an FIR or recording witness statements raises suspicion about the investigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasizes the need for a thorough and unbiased investigation, especially in cases of abetment of suicide. The court stresses that the legal requirements to establish abetment are stringent, and mere words or actions, without specific intent to incite suicide, are insufficient. The court’s decision to order a reinvestigation highlights the importance of due process and ensuring that legal mechanisms are not misused for vengeance.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more