The Kerala High Court has set aside a trial court order that added a charge of abetment to suicide against a man whose wife allegedly died by suicide days after receiving a draft divorce agreement.

The case arose after the deceased’s family—her mother, father, and brother—testified that members of the husband’s family visited the deceased’s home and handed a draft divorce agreement to her brother, who then gave it to the deceased. According to their statements, she became emotionally distressed upon reading the draft and died by suicide three days later.

However, the High Court disagreed with the trial court’s decision to invoke Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide. It held that the evidentiary material presented did not support a charge of instigation, intentional aid, or incitement to suicide.

Quoting from the records, the Court noted:

“In paragraph 5 of Annexure A1 complaint, the allegation is that accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to the house of the deceased on 02.11.2005 and handed over a draft of an agreement for divorce and seeing this, the deceased was mentally shattered… I cannot subscribe to the said finding [of the trial court].”

The Court clarified the legal threshold under Section 306 IPC (now Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita): mere allegations of humiliation or emotional distress, without more, do not amount to abetment. There must be a direct or indirect act of instigation or assistance in the commission of suicide.

“There is no averment in the complaint or the depositions of the prosecution witnesses that the petitioner’s act of handing over the draft divorce agreement was accompanied by any intention to instigate or aid the deceased in taking her life,” the Court said.

It further observed that the deceased’s family only deposed that she was "mentally shattered" after reading the agreement, but never alleged that the petitioner had played an active role in pushing her toward suicide.

Moreover, the Court emphasized that the prosecution had not argued that the petitioner or the co-accused had handed over the agreement with a deliberate intention to provoke the suicide.

Citing Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the High Court stressed that while courts have wide powers to alter or add charges, such power must be exercised based on material evidence that has a clear connection with the additional charge. In this case, no such link was found.

Initially, the police had charged the husband only under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or relatives), alleging that he had subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty that led to her suicide. It was only later, based on a request by the Additional Public Prosecutor, that the trial court added the charge under Section 306 IPC.

Challenging this addition, the husband approached the High Court, which ultimately ruled in his favor and set aside the order.

Case Title: Puthiya Purayil Shaji v. State of Kerala & Another

Counsel for Petitioner: Sr. Advocate M. Ramesh Chander, Advocates Aneesh Joseph, Denis Varghese

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Sangeetha Raj (Public Prosecutor)