Refusal to Marry Cannot by Itself Amount to Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against six persons accused of abetting the suicide of a woman after her alleged lover refused to marry her, holding that refusal to marry following a consensual relationship cannot, by itself, be treated as 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, Medchal-Malkajgiri district of Telangana.

The case arose from the death of 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, following which she died by suicide.

The FIR was registered on the basis of a statement by the woman’s sister. According to the prosecution, the relationship between the woman and the first accused was consensual. It was further alleged that his friend had spoken ill of her, while his sister and parents opposed the relationship.

The prosecution also alleged that the sister of the first accused faced opposition to her proposed marriage if he married the deceased, resulting in pressure surrounding the relationship.

The Supreme Court noted that before taking the extreme step, the woman had called her eldest sister and informed her that the first accused had refused to marry her. However, the Bench found no material showing that any of the accused had instigated her to commit suicide.

“We are unable to find any instigation by the accused/appellants to drive the deceased to death by suicide. It was neither intended nor can it be said to be abetment,” the court said.

The Bench observed that even if the allegations were accepted in their entirety, the case involved, at most, a refusal to marry followed by the woman’s suicide. It stressed that people react differently to situations and that a suicide following a breakup cannot automatically be characterised as abetment.

The court further held that the refusal to marry was neither intended to drive the woman to suicide nor could the accused be attributed with knowledge that she would take her life following the refusal.

The Supreme Court also questioned the circumstances in which the woman was taken away from the first accused’s house despite the relationship being consensual and allegedly accepted by his family. It noted that when she later informed her eldest sister about her intention to end her life, no steps were taken to avert the threatened suicide.

Holding that the prosecution could not be sustained on the allegations, the Bench quashed the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2024.

The court directed that the accused be released forthwith if they were in custody, unless required in any other case. Their bail bonds were ordered to stand cancelled if they were already on bail.