Ayyub & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 168

Read Time:3 Minute, 37 Second

SUBHENDU SANYAL, CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY

1. Facts and Background

The present case arose from a criminal appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for abetment of suicide. The dispute stemmed from a suspected relationship between Ziaul Rahman (deceased), son of the first appellant Ayyub, and Tanu (deceased), cousin sister of Respondent No. 2, Vijay Saini.

1.1 Events Leading to the Dispute

On 2 November 2022, Ayyub lodged FIR No. 366/2022 alleging that certain relatives of Tanu assaulted his son Ziaul Rahman due to suspicion regarding the relationship. Ziaul Rahman later succumbed to his injuries, which included 14 ante-mortem injuries, and the cause of death was recorded as shock and hemorrhage. A charge-sheet was filed under Section 304 IPC, with proceedings pending for enhancement to Section 302 IPC.

On the same day, between 10:30 AM and 11:00 AM, Tanu allegedly committed suicide by hanging. A post-mortem was conducted at 5:00 PM on 2 November 2022. Subsequently, on 3 November 2022, Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 367/2022 accusing the appellants of abetting Tanu’s suicide. The FIR alleged that the appellants had verbally abused and humiliated Tanu earlier that morning, stating, “because of you our boy has died, why you do not die,” and threatened legal and social consequences.

1.2 Claims of the Parties

The appellants contended that the alleged statements did not constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC and that the counter-FIR was a retaliatory measure following the FIR lodged by them. The respondents, however, argued that there was a proximate link between the appellants’ conduct and Tanu’s suicide and that sufficient material existed to proceed with the trial.

2. Issues

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in declining to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the charge-sheet disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 306 IPC.
Whether the circumstances warranted a reinvestigation into the unnatural death of Tanu.

3. Law Applicable

The Court examined the scope of Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC, which requires clear proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid leading to suicide. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were also considered.

4. Analysis by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the alleged utterance attributed to the appellants was casual in nature and made in the heat of the moment. Relying on settled precedents, the Court reiterated that mere words of anger or frustration, without the requisite mens rea, do not amount to instigation for suicide.

The Court found no material indicating direct or indirect acts of incitement or a sustained course of conduct that left the deceased with no option but to end her life. It further observed that the High Court’s reliance on the deceased being a “hypersensitive girl” was legally irrelevant, as criminal liability depends on the intention and conduct of the accused, not the subjective sensitivity of the victim.

The Court also expressed serious concern regarding the belated registration of the counter-FIR and described the investigation as one-sided, partial, and inimical, warranting judicial intervention.

5. Decision and Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that continuation of proceedings against the appellants would amount to a gross abuse of process of law.

Final Directions:

Criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC against the appellants were quashed.
A Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police was directed to reinvestigate the unnatural death of Tanu.
FIR No. 367/2022 was to be treated as a case of unnatural death, with liberty to re-register if required.
The SIT was directed to submit its report to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover within two months.
The matter was listed for further directions on 15 April 2025.