Ashok Kumar Kundu v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2026

The victim, a resident of Jalpaiguri, allegedly consumed carbolic acid on 18 August 2015.

Victim’s father alleged that two men harassed the victim over an extended period:

• Threatened to circulate intimate photographs of the victim and his wife.

• Attempted to cultivate an illicit relationship with the victim’s spouse.

• Applied continuous pressure on the victim, allegedly driving him to suicide.

The accused were not present at the location or time of death.

Evidence included:

• Testimonies of victim’s father (PW-1), wife (PW-2), and brother (PW-3).

• Alleged threatening phone calls and warnings over several months.

• Call detail records.

Gaps and lack of continuity were observed between alleged threats and the suicide.

Trial court acquitted the accused in 2019. The victim’s father filed an appeal seeking reversal.

Abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC requires a proximate, continuous, or coercive act that leads directly to the victim’s death. It is not enough for there to be merely past hostility or unrelated actions.

Mere harassment or past threats, even if they are ongoing over a period of time, cannot automatically satisfy the requirement for abetment under Section 306 IPC. The law requires a clear causal connection between the accused’s conduct and the act of suicide.

The absence of the accused at the time of the incident critically undermines any claim of instigation or intentional aid, as there is no direct presence or involvement that could coerce the victim into committing suicide.

The Court relied on Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) for standards relating to proximate causation under Section 306 IPC, emphasizing that instigation or coercive acts must be immediate and substantial.

Appellate interference with acquittals is permissible only when the trial court’s decision is perverse, unreasonable, or based on a misreading of evidence (as per Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar, 2024). Otherwise, the acquittal should be respected.

The judgment reinforces a strict interpretation of Section 306 IPC, requiring both proximate cause and continuous or coercive conduct, and clarifies that historical animosity, past threats, or strained relations, without a direct causative link, are insufficient to constitute abetment.

The case also confirms the principle of appellate restraint, showing that higher courts should not disturb reasonable trial court acquittals unless there is clear evidence of miscarriage of justice, perverse reasoning, or failure to apply the law correctly, etc.