Kochi: The Kerala High Court has said that in abetment of suicide cases, the accused does not have to explicitly compel the victim, even words that suggest suicide can be treated as instigation.

Justice V G Arun made the observation while refusing to quash criminal proceedings against a petitioner booked under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 113 (liability of abettor for an effect different from that intended) of the Indian Penal Code.

The case stems from the death of Ramesh, who, along with his wife, had started a business venture. The prosecution stated that Ramesh invested money on behalf of the accused, based on his promise to repay the share amount. The funds reportedly came from Ramesh’s proprietary concern.

The accused was responsible for managing daily business operations, which later ran into serious financial trouble. With the business unable to even pay employee salaries, the accused allegedly told staff and creditors to demand their dues from Ramesh. The suicide note reportedly indicates Ramesh took his life after receiving a phone call from the accused.

The petitioner’s senior counsel argued that the allegations were false, the phone-call claim was unverified as call records were not seized, and that the law requires close proximity between the instigation and the act of suicide. They contended that such proximity was absent.

The prosecution countered that proximity existed, emphasising that the suicide note referred to a call from the accused immediately before the death and suggested that the call was a final trigger. The State submitted that the content of the note pointed to a direct link between the petitioner’s actions and the suicide.

The Court observed that all documents relied upon in the final report were not before it and that evaluating proximity between any alleged instigation and the suicide required a full appreciation of the evidence. It reiterated that the High Court cannot conduct a “mini trial” while exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings.

Citing the suicide note, which referred to “treachery” and alleged threats from the petitioner, the Court stated that instigation need not be in the form of explicit coercive language. A suggestion leading to the consequence may suffice, but whether the acts of the accused were sufficiently proximate must be decided at trial. The petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial court.