Supreme Court’s Recent Judgment On Evaluating The Evidentiary Standards For Abetment Of Suicide

Summary:

The Supreme Court of India decision in Ayyub vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[1] on 7 February, 2025 significantly alters the understanding of the section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which concerns the abetment of suicide. The crux of the case involves the accusation that the appellants’ verbal actions—allegedly directed at Tanu—functioned as the last stimulus that left her with no alternative but to take her life. The incident, unlike the previously mentioned brutally lethal assault on Ziaul Rahman, is mired in a singular approach to investigation which is based primarily on the single story told in the First Information Report (FIR) and limited testimonies of a few witnesses.

Case Timeline:

1. Shortly after 9 AM on November 2, 2022, Ayyub, the first appellant, files an FIR stating that a few persons—Bhuru (also known as Janeshwar), Maneshwar Saini, Priyanshu, and Shivam—have beaten up his son, Ziaul Rahman.
2. Ziaul is believed to have had a relationship with Tanu which led to the attack. Ziaul Rahman dies on the same day from the injuries he sustained during the assault.
3. In the postmortem examination done immediately after his death, Ziaul is found to have 14 injuries. It is noted that the cause of death was jsoning shock and elettropic hemorrhage.
4. By November 2, 2022, some allegations state that the appellants went to the house of a relative of the complainant.
5. It is reported that during that contention, Tanu was made to listen to some very offensive speeches, which reportedly pushed her to attempt suicide.
6. There is an uncommonly long gap between Tanu’s death and the registration of the FIR.
7. The High Court preserved the proceedings and did not suppress them because of the supposed direct connection in question between the conduct of the appellants and Tanu’s suicide.

Issue Raised:

The core legal issue in Ayyub vs. State of Uttar Pradesh centers on the stringent evidentiary requirements for establishing abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The pivotal question is whether the appellants’ conduct can be legally classified as an act of instigation that directly or indirectly compelled Tanu to commit suicide.

This issue is compounded by the investigative process which relied heavily on the complainant’s version of events and did not explore alternative explanations for Tanu’s state of mind. The prosecution’s inability to present corroborative evidence that could conclusively link the appellants’ verbal remarks to Tanu’s decision to commit suicide further muddied the waters. Additionally, procedural anomalies—such as the delay in filing the FIR for Tanu’s death—cast serious doubts on the reliability of the charges filed under Section 306 IPC.

Appellant’s Arguments:

The appellants argued that while they had made certain verbal remarks at the complainant’s relative’s residence, these remarks did not amount to an overt act of instigation or encouragement for suicide. They contended that mere verbal expressions—even if harsh—could not satisfy the requirement of establishing a causal link leading directly to suicide.

The defense pointed to the investigative deficiencies, highlighting that the entire charge sheet was built on a single narrative—the FIR—and a few uncorroborated witness statements. The absence of independent evidence or an in-depth exploration of other contributory factors (such as Tanu’s emotional state or other external pressures) meant that the prosecution failed to meet the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard necessary for conviction. The appellants argued that the High Court’s reliance on a proximate link between their actions and Tanu’s tragic decision was unsubstantiated. They emphasized that multiple factors could have influenced Tanu’s decision, and without a comprehensive investigation, attributing her suicide solely to their alleged remarks was both legally and factually unjustifiable.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The prosecution, representing the State, maintained that the appellants’ actions did indeed have a direct or indirect influence on Tanu’s decision to commit suicide. The respondents argued that the harsh verbal remarks made by the appellants were instrumental in precipitating a state of emotional distress in Tanu. They contended that this distress, in conjunction with the turbulent circumstances surrounding the assault on Ziaul Rahman, created an environment in which Tanu felt compelled to take her own life.

The prosecution held that there was a clear proximate link between the appellants’ behaviour and the eventual suicide of Tanu. By emphasizing that the verbal assault left her with no reasonable alternatives, they maintained that the elements of abetment as laid down in legal precedents were satisfied. The respondents argued that despite the investigation’s reliance on the complainant’s narrative, the witness testimonies provided a consistent account that aligned with the FIR.

Judgment:

In the end, the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding this case was in favor of the appellants. The Court noted that the evidence tendered by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt an overt act of instigation as needed in Section 306 IPC. The Court also noted that the charge sheet lacked a lot of information as it relied heavily on the complainant’s story. Furthermore, the witness accounts were largely repetitive of the FIR without any aid or corroborative commentary. The failure to pursue in depth any alternative explanations for Tanu’s suicide made the causal orthodoxy rather weak.

The ruling further clarified that in order to get a conviction based on Section 306 IPC, it is necessary to convincingly suggest that the actions of the suspect, directly or indirectly, provoked the victim to resolve to commit suicide. It is not sufficient to say that any comments, whatever be the form or content, are adequate to suggest a connection. Moreover, while the High Court previously accepted the description of Tanu’s suicide as a result of the appellants’ conduct, the Supreme Court did not accept this line of reasoning. It pointed out that there was very scant attention paid to her emotional vulnerability, her circumstances, and other family factors. Therefore, it was clearly illogical to blame the suicide solely on the conduct of the appellants.

Analysis:

The judgment reiterates that the prosecution holds the burden of proving intent, as there’s no way to prosecute a person for abetting a suicide based on unverified evidence. This threshold of instigation is extremely high and requires more than witness hearsay or singular narratives. Therefore, reliance on the previously stated factors greatly undermined the case and simultaneously set important standards for future ones.

While the state has a responsibility to pursue justice with vigor, there is a huge importance placed on doing it bearing in mind legal restrictions and evidentiary limits. The appellants: Harsh words cannot be the sole reason why a person should be charged with abetment. This greatly assisted in shaping the importance of causality in the chain of events that form the basis of criminal liability. Lastly, an appeal to experts in areas where the issue is more complex than the case suggests in the domain is needed. The decision to drop all charges and order a new investigation is simply an example of a classic blind attempt to achieve justice.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ayyub vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a landmark judgment that clearly delineates the evidentiary and procedural standards required to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. By quashing the charges against the appellants, the Court emphasized that criminal liability for abetment must be based on clear, incontrovertible evidence of an overt act of instigation. The case also highlights the critical importance of a comprehensive and unbiased investigative process, as evidenced by the Court’s directive to establish a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for a fresh inquiry into Tanu’s death.

[1] Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2025.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com