In the case of Balaji Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another (2026), the Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings against an individual accused of abetting the suicide of a man with whose wife he allegedly had an illicit relationship.
The following is a summary of the judgment:
Case Background
The case arose following the death of Komal Sahu, who committed suicide by hanging in October 2024. Following an investigation, a final report was filed naming the appellant, Balaji Jaiswal, as the primary accused and the deceased’s wife, Revati Bai, as the second accused. The prosecution alleged that an illicit relationship existed between the two accused and that the wife had frequently insulted the deceased in the appellant’s presence, leaving the deceased with no choice but to take his own life. Consequently, charges were framed against the appellant under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) or, alternatively, Section 306 read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
Key Legal Principles regarding Abetment
The Supreme Court analyzed the case by applying established legal principles regarding the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306:
- Mandatory Ingredients: To sustain a charge, the prosecution must prove that the accused contributed to the suicide through a direct or indirect act that satisfies the conditions of “abetment” under Section 107 of the IPC.
- The Requirement of Instigation: Abetment requires a positive act of instigation or incitement—meaning the accused must goad, urge forward, provoke, or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.
- Presence of Mens Rea: There must be a clear mens rea (guilty mind) showing a deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke the victim into a position where they have no other option but to commit suicide.
- Harassment is Insufficient: The Court reaffirmed that mere harassment or an illicit relationship, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide without evidence of an active act that led to the death.
- Proximity and Nexus: There must be a close proximity in time and a direct nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide.
Findings of the Court
The Supreme Court found that the material collected by the prosecution, even when accepted at face value, failed to satisfy the legal requirements for abetment:
- Absence of Instigation: There was no material on record to indicate any positive act of instigation or incitement by the appellant that could have led to the suicide.
- Lack of Proximity: While the appellant and the deceased had consumed liquor together on the night before the suicide, there was no evidence of a conflict or instigation during that meeting that would form a nexus with the suicide committed the following morning.
- Nature of Allegations: The allegations regarding an illicit relationship were found to be largely hearsay or general in nature and were not considered material in this specific legal context.
- Addiction and Domestic Strife: Witness statements indicated that the deceased was addicted to liquor and often fought with his wife over money for alcohol.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that requiring the appellant to face trial based on such insufficient material would be a “futile exercise” and an abuse of the process of law. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s previous order, and quashed the criminal proceedings against Balaji Jaiswal. The Court clarified that the trial against the deceased’s wife (Accused No. 2) would proceed uninfluenced by these observations.
2026 INSC 375
Balaji Jaiswal V. State of Chattisgarh And Another (D.O.J. 16.04.2026)
