Single Judge partially quashes cognizance under Section 306 IPC in a case involving a minor’s suicide, stressing the need for prima facie evidence of instigation.
Bench & Date of Order
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita of the Gauhati High Court delivered the order on 10 January 2026.
Case Title
Hussain Md. Rijuan v. State of Assam, Crl. Pet./800/2021 (Gauhati High Court).
Background and Legal Issue
The petition arose from a tragic incident in July 2020 when a 19-year-old girl in Nagaon, Assam, reportedly committed suicide. Her father filed an FIR against the petitioner, alleging that he had been in a romantic relationship with her for about two years, made a promise to marry her, and later refused marriage. The FIR claimed this led to mental agony and ultimately her suicide.
The police initially registered the offence under Sections 417 (cheating) and 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, charges of rape under Section 376 IPC and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act were added on the basis that the relationship began when the girl was a minor. Cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, Nagaon.
The principal legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial court rightly took cognizance of the offences, particularly whether refusal to marry after a love affair could, without more, constitute abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
High Court’s Ruling
The Gauhati High Court partly allowed the criminal petition, setting aside the cognizance under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the materials on record did not prima facie disclose instigation or mens rea required for abetment of suicide. However, it upheld the cognizance for offences under Sections 376 and 417 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Kalita noted that while the existence of a love affair and a broken promise of marriage were undisputed, there was no prima facie evidence to show that the accused either instigated, provoked, or aided the deceased in committing suicide, as required under Section 107 IPC read with Section 306.
The Court emphasised that to sustain an abetment charge under Section 306, there must be clear evidence of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid that reasonably caused the deceased to view suicide as her only option. Mere emotional distress due to refusal of marriage, without more, did not meet this threshold.
The Judge observed the absence of any evidence suggesting continuous harassment or a direct link between the accused’s conduct and the suicide. Even though the deceased was distressed, crying at home and depressed over the breakup, such facts did not demonstrate the necessary mens rea for abetment.
Regarding the sexual offence charges, the High Court found sufficient material to warrant continuing proceedings. The FIR and investigation disclosed that the petitioner and the deceased had engaged in a sustained sexual relationship beginning when she was reportedly underage, justifying cognizance under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act.
The Court also clarified that the vernacular expression used in the FIR for “physical relations” was ordinarily understood to denote sexual intercourse, supporting prima facie findings for those offences.
Implications of the Judgment
- Section 306 IPC Standards: The ruling reinforces that abetment of suicide charges require more than emotional distress or disappointment; there must be evidence of instigation or intentional acts directly linked to the suicide.
- Relationships and Criminal Liability: Falling out of a romantic relationship or refusal of marriage, even after false promises, does not automatically attract abetment liability under criminal law absent clear instigation.
- POCSO and Sexual Offences: Courts may rely on the context and vernacular understanding of terms in FIRs to assess prima facie case for sexual offences involving minors, particularly under the POCSO Act.
- Role of Mens Rea: This decision aligns with broader jurisprudence emphasising that mens rea and positive acts are necessary to substantiate abetment charges.
The judgment adds clarity on the evidentiary threshold for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC and the need to distinguish between emotional fallout from personal relationships and criminal culpability, while also affirming the standards for cognizance of sexual offences under IPC and the POCSO Act.
