Extramarital Affair Alone Not Abetment to Suicide: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that merely a man being in an illicit relationship with another man's wife cannot amount to abetment to suicide to the other man unless there is material to show that he instigated, incited, or intentionally aided the deceased in taking his own life.

Setting aside criminal proceedings against a man accused of abetting the suicide of another whose wife allegedly had an affair with him, the Court said there was no material on record to show any direct or indirect act of instigation that could attract the offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code (corresponding to Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita).

A Bench of Justices K V Vishwanathan and Atul Chandurkar allowed an appeal filed by one Balaji Jaiswal against an April 8, 2025 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had refused to quash charges framed against him in connection with the October 2024 death of Komal Sahu.

According to the prosecution, Komal's wife, Revati Bai, had insulted him on several occasions in the presence of the appellant. It was alleged that Revati Bai and the appellant were in an illicit relationship and that Komal, unable to bear the situation, ultimately died by suicide. The final report named Balaji Jaiswal as the first accused and Revati Bai as the second accused.

The Supreme Court, however, found that even if the allegations were accepted in their entirety, the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment to suicide were not made out.

"We have perused the entire documentary material on record that forms part of the charge sheet. Having given due consideration to the relevant factual aspects and bearing in mind the legal position as settled, we are of the view that the prayer made by the appellant deserves to be granted and the criminal proceedings qua the appellant deserve to be quashed," Court observed.

Abetment to suicide and quashing the case

Examining the matter, Court referred to the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1990), which recognise that criminal proceedings can be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose any offence.

The bench noted that to sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, it must be shown that the accused contributed to the suicide through some direct or indirect act. Referring to Section 107 of the IPC (now Section 45 of the BNS), Court said there must be material indicating instigation or incitement coupled with a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.

"There ought to be some material to indicate a positive act of instigation, which is a crucial component of abetment. Instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person has been held to be the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. The act of instigation also has to be in close proximity to the act of suicide so as to form the nexus or a chain to indicate that the act of suicide was the direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person," the Bench said.

In the present case, Court noted that statements of family members and neighbours pointed to Komal's addiction to liquor. Apart from those statements and general allegations regarding the illicit relationship between Revati Bai and the appellant, there was no material indicating any instigation or incitement by the appellant.

Court further found no material establishing any proximate link between any interaction involving the appellant and the deceased's decision to commit suicide. It therefore held that the requirements of Section 107 IPC were not satisfied.

"Even if we proceed on the premise that there were illicit relations between the appellant and the wife of the deceased, the clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide by Komal is absent," the Bench observed.

Court reiterated that a charge under Section 306 IPC requires a positive act of instigation or intentional aid towards the commission of suicide.

"There is no allegation that the appellant had instigated Komal to commit suicide or that he had in some way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. Further, there is no material on record to infer that Komal was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the absence of such mens rea on the part of the accused being apparent from the face of record, the charge under Section 306 of the Penal Code cannot be sustained," the Bench held.

Holding that the high court failed to assess the material on record in light of settled legal principles, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against Balaji Jaiswal.

While discharging the appellant, Court clarified that its findings were confined to his case alone and that the trial against co-accused Revati Bai would continue independently and remain uninfluenced by any observations made in the judgment.

Case Title: Balaji Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh And Another

Bench: K V Vishwanathan and Atul S Chandurkar

Date of Judgment: April 16, 2026