1. This revision Petition has been filed by the accused challenging the judgment in Crl.A No.30/2015 of Sessions Court, Alappuzha by which it confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them by the trial court in S.C No.121/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short).

2. In brief the prosecution case is that Sasidharan, who is the father of A2 and father-in-law of A1, committed suicide by hanging in his tharavad house between 5.30 pm of 16.7.2008 and 11.30 am of 17.7.2008 due to the mental and physical harassment and humiliation of the accused. According to the prosecution, accused abetted the commission of suicide by Sasidharan and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC.

3. Initially, pursuant to Ext.P1 first information statement given by PW1, Ext.P5 FIR was registered by PW8 under the caption 'unnatural death' and FIR was sent to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate. Subsequently, PW8 filed Ext.P6 report before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Haripad incorporating Section 306 r/w Section 34 IPC and arraigned the revision petitioners herein as accused and the crime was investigated. After completing the investigation, PW9 filed final report against the accused before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Haripad for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. The case was subsequently committed to Court of Sessions, Alappuzha, which in turn made over it to the Assistant Sessions Court, Alappuzha for trial. The trial court framed charge under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused. Charge was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and faced trial. In substantiation of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9, marked Exts.P1 to P9 and identified MOs 1 to 7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Cr.P.C for short). Accused denied all the incriminating evidence against them and maintained that they are innocent and they were falsely implicated.

4. As the trial court found that it was not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C, accused were called upon to enter on their defence and to adduce any evidence, which they might have in support thereof. On the side of the accused, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked.

5. After trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of ₹25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months each. Set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C was also allowed.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, though the accused preferred appeal as Crl.A No.30/2015 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence against both accused, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused assails the conviction and sentence on the ground that there is absolutely no evidence to show that they abetted and instigated the deceased Sasidharan to commit suicide; that the prosecution failed to prove that Ext.P2 is in the handwriting of deceased Sasidharan. Further it was contended that in Ext.P2 suicide note, allegedly written by the deceased, there is nothing to suggest that the accused were responsible for the death of Sasidharan and therefore, the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in finding them guilty by relying on Ext.P2. It was further contended that PW1, PW6 and PW7 were in inimical terms with A1 and A2 and therefore their versions implicating the accused are not reliable and trustworthy. It was contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the accused abetted Sasidharan to commit suicide and there was no intentional aid, act or commission on the part of the accused in instigating the deceased to commit suicide and therefore the trial court and the appellate court went wrong in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 IPC.

9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the trial court and the appellate court have analysed the evidence in its correct perspective; that Ext.P2 suicide note of the deceased Sasidharan coupled with the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses, would clearly show that the accused physically and mentally tortured and humiliated deceased Sasidharan, causing great mental agony and pain to Sasidharan and drove him to commit suicide. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused intentionally aided and instigated Sasidharan to commit suicide by physically and mentally harassing him and thus abetted him in committing suicide and therefore, the conviction and sentence against the accused warrant no interference by this Court.

10. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC warrants any interference by this Court.

11. Accused 1 and 2 are husband and wife. As per the prosecution case, the deceased Sasidharan who is the father of A2 Savitha, committed suicide in between 5.30 pm of 16.7.2008 and 11.30 am of 17.7.2008 in his family house named Unnitharayil House situated in Pothappalli South Muri, Kumarapuram Village. He was found hanging in one of the rooms in the said house. Ext.P4 is the inquest report. Ext.P3 is the postmortem certificate. In Ext.P3 postmortem certificate, PW2 doctor who conducted the postmortem, has opined that death was due to hanging. Further, it has been opined that the deceased had consumed poison prior to death.

12. According to the prosecution, Sasidharan committed suicide due to the physical and mental harassment and humiliation faced by him from the accused 1 and 2, who are his son-in-law and daughter and the accused abetted the commission of suicide by Sasidharan. In support of the prosecution case that the accused abetted him to commit suicide, the prosecution placed reliance on the versions of PW1, 6 and 7 and Ext.P2, Exts.P7, P8 and P8(a) documents.

13. PW1 is the brother of the deceased Sasidharan. According to him, it was he who laid Ext.P1 first information statement, based on which Ext.P5 FIR was registered. His version is that on 17.7.2008, while he was on his way to Haripad, he received a phone call from the husband of PW6 Smitha that his brother Sasidharan committed suicide in the tharavad house named 'Unnitharayil house'. When he rushed there, he could see his brother hanging in one of the rooms in the said house. PW1 has further testified that prior to hanging himself, Sasidharan had cut the veins of both hands. According to him, Ext.P2 suicide note was seen kept on the table; that in Ext.P2 suicide note, Sasidharan had stated that the accused Murukan (A1) and Savitha (A2) are responsible for his death and his dead body shall not be shown to them. According to PW1, up to seven months prior to the death of his brother Sasidharan, the latter was residing in the house of A2 Savitha; that seven months prior to the death of Sasidharan, A1 and A2 ousted Sasidharan from the said house and from the business run in the shop rooms, which caused great mental agony to the deceased. PW1 has further testified that on 6.7.2008 at about 5 pm, there was an attempt of mediation at the house of A1 and A2 qua the disputes; that in the said mediation talk, the siblings and the daughters of Sasidharan including the accused had participated; that on that day, accused again quarrelled with deceased Sasidharan and A1 Murukan pushed him down and Sasidharan was taken to the hospital. According to PW1, his brother Sasidharan committed suicide due to the mental agony suffered by him on account of the fact that accused ousted him from the house and shop, which was originally owned by Sasidharan and which he himself transferred in favour of A2 Savitha. According to PW1, regarding the unnatural death of his brother, he laid Ext.P1 first information statement to the Police. He has further testified that the police had seized Ext.P2 suicide note from the room wherein the deceased was found hanging.

14. PW6 is the elder daughter of the deceased Sasidharan. According to her, A1 and A2 ousted Sasidharan from the house and the shop and thereafter her father was residing with her. She has further testified that in December 2006, after the marriage between A1 and A2, her father gave the house named 'Seaking house' to A2 Savitha. In addition to that, two shop rooms owned by him were also transferred in the name of A2 Savitha, wherein Sasidharan was conducting a bakery and wholesale business in groceries. According to PW6, the major portion of the property of Sasidharan was given to A2 Savitha with the hope, belief and understanding that A2 Savitha and her husband Murukan (A1) will look after and take care of Sasidharan. But the accused mentally and physically harassed Sasidharan and ousted him from the house and also from the business run in the shop rooms. Her further version is that on 06.07.2008 when she and her husband, her sister Saritha and her husband, along with the siblings of Sasidharan, had gone to the house of accused to discuss about the issue, accused pushed her father Sasidharan to the ground and Sasidharan had to be taken to the hospital. Again on 15.07.2008 they had again gone to the house of accused to have another round of mediation talks. On that day also, accused refused to permit Sasidharan to reside in the said house. PW6 has further stated that on 15.07.2008 accused humiliated Sasidharan by saying   She has also testified that her father had told her that on 8.7.2008, the brother of A1 Murukan intimidated him. According to PW6, her father committed suicide due to the ill treatment and unbearable mental agony caused by accused. Regarding the incident which took place on 06.07.2008, A2 Savitha had laid a complaint before the Haripad Police Station against Sasidharan and others.

15. PW7 Saritha is the twin sister of A2 Savitha. She too deposed more or less in the same line as that of PW6. According to her, in connection with the marriage of A2 Savitha, Sasidharan gave the family house named ‘Seaking house' and two shop rooms to A2. Apart from that her father also gave a sum of ₹8 lakhs to A2. PW7 has also testified that the major portion of her father’s property was given to A2 Savitha on the specific understanding that A2 would take care of the father. According to her, earlier the business was being jointly managed by her father and A1 Murukan. Later on, A1 Murukan ousted Sasidharan from the business run in the said shops. Her further version is that on 6.7.2008, she along with other relatives had gone to the house of the accused to have discussions in the said matter and on that day, A1 Murukan caught hold of Sasidharan on his neck and pushed Sasidharan and he was taken to hospital. Regarding the incident which took place on 06.07.2008, both Sasidharan and A2 Savitha had complained before the Haripad Police Station. Subsequently, to resolve the issues, she along with other relatives had again gone to the house of the accused on 15.7.2008. But the accused Murukan did not permit A2 Savitha to talk with the father and humiliated him by saying According to her, on that day her father left the house of the accused by crying. She has further testified that she also came to know that Vishnu who is the brother-in-law of A1 Murukan intimidated her father. According to PW7, her father committed suicide due to the mental agony caused by the accused by ousting him from the house and shop and thereby accused abetted the commission of suicide by her father. She would also say that Ext.P2 is the suicide note written by her father.

16. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the accused had the intention to provoke, incite, urge the deceased to commit suicide.

17. At this juncture, it is apposite to examine the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents bearing on the issue. Section 306 IPC reads as under:

                            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.

18. Abetment is defined in Section 107 IPC, which reads as under:

                            “A person abets the doing of a thing, who – First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

19. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618] the Apex Court held as under:

                            "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act"."

20. In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another, [(2021) 19 SCC 144], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: -

                            15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something.

21. In M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, [(2019) 3 SCC 315], the Apex Court observed as under: -

                            "7. The essential ingredients of the offence under S.306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the ac cused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/ abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under S.306 IPC."

22. In Ude Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, [(2019) 17 SCC 301], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:

                            "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses / reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

                            16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four - corners of S.306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self -esteem and self - respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap shot of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."

23. In Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025 KHC 6701) the Apex Court held that always a proximate incident or act prior to suicide is a very relevant aspect in finding the death to be a direct consequence of the acts of the person accused of abetting the suicide.

24. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, [(1994) 1 SCC 73], the Apex Court held as follows:

                            "If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty".

25. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2009) 16 SCC 605] the Apex Court observed as follows:

                            "Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self - respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self - protection or an escapism from intolerable self."

26. In Prakash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835], the Apex Court held as under:

                            "14. S.306 read with S.107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well - established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he / she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

27. In M.Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, [(2011) 3 SCC 626] after analyzing a long line of precedents, the Apex Court held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence and also an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.

28. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, [(2010) 8 SCC 628] the Apex Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated under Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to drive the person to suicide is required. It was held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC.

29. Bearing in mind the above well-settled position of law, as to what constitutes abetment of suicide, let us see whether the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

30. PW1, 6 and 7 have testified that it was due to the physical and mental harassment of the accused that the victim Sasidharan committed suicide. Their version is that though Sasidharan transferred the ownership of his house and two shop rooms to the accused, who are his daughter and son-in-law, the accused ousted him from the house and from the business run in the said shop room, which caused mental agony to Sasidharan. It is the further case of the witness that on 6.7.2008, PW1, 6 and 7, along with the husbands of PW6 and PW7 and siblings of Sasidharan had reached at the house of the accused to have a settlement talk. A1 manhandled Sasidharan by pushing him to the ground and he had laid a petition before the police. To substantiate the prosecution case that on 06.07.2008 when PW1, PW6 along with other relatives and Sasidharan had gone to the house of A1 and A2 and accused pushed down Sasidharan, prosecution has produced Ext.P8(a) petition register of the Haripad Police Station and marked Ext.P(a) entry wherein it is seen recorded that on 06.07.2008 Sasidharan laid a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Haripad Police Station, against the accused herein. It is the case of the prosecution that, subsequent to 6.7.2008 there was another attempt of mediation talk on 15.7.2008 at the house of accused and on that day accused humiliated Sasidharan. According to the prosecution, the said insulting and humiliating words of the accused caused mental pain and agony to Sasidharan, which drove him to commit suicide. It is the case of the prosecution that in Ext.P2 suicide note Sasidharan has specifically stated that his dead body shall not be shown to the accused and in Ext.P2, he has also stated that they shall not be permitted to enter into the Unnitharayil house, namely his family house, wherein he hanged himself.

31. It is also to be borne in mind that the prosecution did not take any steps to show that Ext.P2 is the suicide note of the deceased Sasidharan. No steps were taken by the prosecution to prove his handwriting and signature. It is a lacuna on the part of the prosecution. Even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted as true, it can be seen that in Ext.P2 suicide note, there is no mention that the accused are responsible for the commission of suicide by Sasidharan. Though PWs 1, 6 and 7 have testified that in Ext.P2 suicide note Sasidharan has stated that accused are responsible for his death, a reading of Ext.P2, one cannot find such a sentence. It is true that in Ext.P2 it has been stated that his body shall not be shown to the accused. The mere mention in a suicide note that the dead body shall not be shown to certain persons it cannot be presumed that they are responsible for the commission of suicide. What prosecution could establish from the evidence adduced is only to the effect that there was some property dispute between the deceased Sasidharan and the accused. The prosecution could not establish that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by Sasidharan.

32. In S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr., [(2010) 12 SCC 190] and Patel Babubhai Manohardas v. State of Gujarat (2025 KHC 6221) the Apex Court held that the abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under S.306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

33. The 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 S.306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in the ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.

34. 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 person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

35. The crucial ingredient of the offence of abetment of suicide, namely, the element of mens rea in promoting the deceased to commit suicide, is absent in this case. The evidence on record do not reveal that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Even if the version of PW1, 6 and 7 that the accused had stated to Sasidharan

that does not by itself is not a ground to hold that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

36. There is no proximate incident or act prior to suicide to establish that the death of Sasidharan was a direct consequence of the acts of the accused and the accused abetted suicide. At the most, what can be construed from the sentence in Ext.P2 suicide note that the dead body shall not be shown to the accused is that deceased Sasidharan had displeasure and anguish towards A1 and A2. None of the ingredients of abetment of suicide so as to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC have been established against the accused by the prosecution and therefore, the accused are entitled to get an order of acquittal. Hence, accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted. In the result, this revision petition stands allowed; A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Fine, if any remitted by the accused shall be returned to the accused. Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith.