Refusal to Marry After Consensual Relationship Not Enough for Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against six people accused of abetting the suicide of a woman after her alleged lover refused to marry her, holding that a refusal to marry following a consensual relationship cannot, by itself, amount to abetment of suicide.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the proceedings pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kushaiguda, Telangana's Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The court observed that there was no material showing that the accused had instigated the woman to take her own life.

The case concerned a woman who had been living with the first accused, described as her lover, for around three months. Her siblings alleged that he subsequently refused to marry her, after which she died by suicide.

The police registered the FIR based on a statement by the woman's sister. According to the prosecution, the relationship between the woman and the first accused was consensual, and she had been staying at his house.

The allegations also included claims that a friend of the first accused had spoken against the woman, while his sister and parents had opposed the relationship. The prosecution further alleged that the sister of the first accused faced pressure in her own proposed marriage because her prospective groom was unwilling to proceed if the first accused married the deceased.

The Supreme Court noted that the woman had spoken to her eldest sister before her death and told her that the first accused had refused to marry her. However, the Bench found no material demonstrating that any of the accused had instigated her to commit suicide.

The court said that even if the allegations made by the complainant were accepted in full, they established, at most, that the accused had refused to marry the woman and that she subsequently died by suicide. It held that such circumstances alone could not establish the offence of abetment.

The Bench observed that individuals respond differently to difficult personal situations and that a suicide following the breakdown of a relationship cannot automatically be treated as abetment of suicide.

It further said there was no basis to conclude that the refusal to marry was intended to drive the woman to suicide or that the accused could have been expected to know that she would take her own life following the refusal.

The court also raised questions about why the woman had been taken away from the first accused's residence when, according to the prosecution itself, the relationship had been consensual and had been accepted by his family.

The Bench noted that the woman had subsequently told her eldest sister about her intention to end her life, but no steps were taken to prevent the threatened suicide.

Holding that the prosecution could not sustain the allegations presented, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2024.

The court also directed that the accused be released immediately if they were in custody, unless their detention was required in connection with another case. Where any of them were already out on bail, the court ordered their bail bonds cancelled.