Introduction:
The case of Ashok Kumar Kundu v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (CRA 25 of 2019) came before the Calcutta High Court at its Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench in an appeal challenging the acquittal of two accused persons in a case registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was filed by the father of the deceased, who sought reversal of the 2019 judgment of the Sessions Court that had acquitted the accused of charges relating to abetment of suicide. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury. The factual matrix of the case revealed that the deceased, a resident of Jalpaiguri, had died on 18 August 2015 after allegedly consuming carbolic acid. The prosecution’s case was that the accused had subjected the deceased to prolonged harassment, issued threats to circulate intimate photographs involving the deceased and his wife, and had allegedly attempted to cultivate an illicit relationship with the deceased’s spouse. These acts, according to the appellant, created severe mental distress that ultimately drove the deceased to take his own life. The High Court was thus called upon to determine whether the evidence on record established the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide and whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court warranted interference under appellate jurisdiction.
Arguments:
On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the gravity of the harassment and threats faced by the deceased. The appellant contended that the accused had engaged in a sustained pattern of intimidation, including threatening to publish intimate photographs and making repeated phone calls that created a hostile and unbearable environment for the deceased. It was further submitted that the accused had attempted to interfere in the marital life of the deceased by allegedly seeking to establish an illicit relationship with his wife, which added to the psychological trauma experienced by the victim. The testimonies of key witnesses, including the father (PW-1), wife (PW-2), and brother (PW-3) of the deceased, were relied upon to demonstrate the persistent harassment and the mental state of the deceased prior to his death. The appellant argued that the cumulative effect of these acts constituted abetment within the meaning of Section 306 IPC, as the conduct of the accused had driven the deceased to commit suicide. It was further contended that the trial court had erred in giving undue weight to minor inconsistencies in the evidence and had failed to consider the broader pattern of conduct that established the culpability of the accused. The appellant thus prayed for reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the accused.
On the other hand, the respondents supported the judgment of the trial court and argued that the prosecution had failed to establish any direct or proximate link between the alleged acts of the accused and the suicide of the deceased. It was contended that the essential ingredients of abetment, namely instigation, intentional aid, or active participation, were completely absent in the present case. The respondents emphasised that none of the accused were present at or near the place of occurrence at the time of the incident and that there was no evidence to suggest any immediate provocation or coercion that could have compelled the deceased to take his life. It was further argued that the allegations of threats and harassment were not corroborated by independent evidence and that there were significant gaps in the timeline between the alleged acts and the suicide. The respondents also pointed to the call detail records, which did not establish any communication between the accused and the deceased during the critical period leading up to the incident. They contended that the deceased had recently returned from Durgapur and was already in a state of depression, which could have contributed to his decision to commit suicide. The respondents further argued that the scope of appellate interference in an acquittal is limited and that unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or wholly unreasonable, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal.
Judgment:
The Calcutta High Court, after a detailed examination of the evidence and legal principles governing abetment of suicide, upheld the acquittal of the accused and dismissed the appeal. The Division Bench reiterated that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, it is essential to establish a clear and proximate link between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide. Mere allegations of past harassment or strained relations, without evidence of a direct and immediate nexus, are insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), which emphasised that abetment requires an active role such as instigation or conduct so persistent and coercive that it leaves the victim with no option but to commit suicide.
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish any such active or proximate conduct on the part of the accused. While the testimonies of the family members indicated that threats had been made in the past, the Court noted that there were significant gaps in time between these alleged acts and the suicide. Importantly, there was no evidence to show that the accused had any contact with the deceased in the days immediately preceding the incident. The Court observed that the deceased had died four to five days after returning from Durgapur and that there was no material to indicate that the accused had communicated with or influenced him during this critical period.
The Bench also highlighted the lack of corroboration for key allegations, particularly the claim that the accused had attempted to establish an illicit relationship with the deceased’s wife. The Court found that these allegations were not supported by independent evidence and could not be relied upon to establish abetment. The call detail records and other documentary evidence did not place the accused in proximity to the deceased at the relevant time, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
The Court also considered the principles governing appellate interference with an acquittal, as laid down in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (2024). It reiterated that an appellate court should interfere with an acquittal only when the findings of the trial court are perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or when no reasonable view could support the conclusion reached. In the present case, the High Court found that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was a plausible and reasonable view based on the material on record. Even if certain defects in investigation or prosecution were taken into account, the evidence was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In light of these findings, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide and that there was no ground to interfere with the acquittal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the judgment of the Sessions Court was affirmed.