Property dispute not enough to frame abetment charge: Court

Court dismisses challan against man accused of abetting brother’s suicide

15/09/2026

Jammu, Sep 14: The 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Jammu, has discharged a man accused of abetting the suicide of his brother, holding that a property dispute and filing of civil litigation could not, by themselves, constitute direct and proximate instigation to suicide.
The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Anoop Kumar Sharma, dismissed the challan against Pardeep Kumar, a resident of Hari Singh Nagar, Rehari Colony, Jammu, who was booked under Section 306 of the IPC in FIR No. 32/2024 of Police Station Bakshi Nagar.
According to the prosecution, Pardeep's brother Sushil Kumar sustained burn injuries after allegedly setting himself on fire on December 31, 2023, and died at Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu, on January 8, 2024. An inquest was initially conducted before the FIR was registered.
The prosecution alleged that the accused and the deceased, who were real brothers, had a dispute over their ancestral house and that Pardeep had been demanding a share in the property. It was further alleged that he used to threaten, harass and physically assault his brother and had also initiated litigation concerning the property. The prosecution argued that the accused's alleged physical and mental torture had driven the deceased to take the extreme step and urged the court to frame a charge under Section 306 IPC.
Defence counsel Rakesh Sharma, however, submitted that the dispute concerned three marlas of ancestral property and that the accused had merely ex-ercised a legal remedy by approaching the civil court.
He argued that there was no material showing the necessary intention, instigation or proximate act required to constitute abetment of suicide.
After examining the material on record, the court observed that an offence under Section 306 IPC requires proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without a positive act proximate to the time of the suicide that led or compelled the person to take the extreme step, are insufficient even at the stage of framing a charge.
Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court, including NipunAneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and MahendraAwase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court stressed that Section 306 IPC cannot be invoked casually and that the conduct and interactions between the accused and deceased have to be assessed in the context of the facts of each case.
The court held that to attract Section 306 IPC, the alleged abettor must have provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased and pushed him to a position where suicide appeared to be the only option. Such instigation must also be in close proximity to the commission of suicide.
Applying these principles, the court said that claiming a share in ancestral property and filing litigation over such a claim were common features of property disputes and could not be treated as a direct and proximate cause of the deceased's suicide.
It further noted that both brothers belonged to the same financial background and rejected the suggestion that the accused was in a position to exploit the deceased's financial constraints and thereby push him towards suicide.
The court concluded that although the material established that Sushil Kumar had died by self-immolation, it did not disclose the ingredients necessary to hold Pardeep Kumar prima facie liable for abetment of suicide. Accordingly, the court discharged the accused of the offence under Section 306 IPC, dismissed the challan and relieved him of his bail bonds.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty