Recently, the Supreme Court observed that there must be there must be substantial evidence to establish the presence of suicide to attract section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Brief -

In the said matter, the accused was charged under Section 306 IPC. This legal action followed the demise of his wife. Her father, who held the position of a Sub-Inspector of Police at that time, lodged a complaint against the accused, accusing him of abetting the suicide.

The accused filed a petition challenging to quash an First Information Report (FIR) against him, but the High Court rejected his plea.

During the trials, the division bench of Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala noted that the very factum of death by suicide has not been proved and that the accused was not in speaking terms with the deceased wife.

"The de facto complainant being a police officer himself has not given a compliant promptly after the death. On the contrary, he himself performed the cremation the next day, and gave the complaint on 18.04.2009. Statement of LW13 has to be understood on the attending circumstances. The statement given by LW3 also has no value and substance. It is rather strange that the de facto complainant and his family were not aware of any of the facts alleged till such time, especially when the deceased and the accused were visiting them frequently, and the occurrence took place in the de facto complainant’s house.", the court noted.

"The elements of Section 306 IPC come into play when there is evidence to establish the occurrence of suicide, followed by the necessary abetment as stipulated under Section 107 of the IPC. Given that there is no substantial evidence supporting the prosecution's claim of suicide, it is noteworthy that the statement provided by LW25 indicates that the deceased was unwell and in poor health," the court further elaborated.