Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.

In this essential criminal law precedent, Justice K.T. Thomas clarified the strict mens rea requirements for the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Supreme Court held that the word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do an undesirable act. An angry remark or heated quarrel during which the accused utters abusive words such as 'go and die' cannot, by itself, satisfy the definition of instigation under Section 107 IPC. Where a suicide occurs two days after such a quarrel, the proximate link between the utterance and the suicide is broken, demonstrating that the deceased had sufficient time to cool down and reflect. Quashing the charge-sheet, the Court held that hypersensitive reactions to domestic disputes cannot be visited with criminal culpability.

• Definition of Instigation: Instigate means to incite, provoke, or urge another to do an act; requires active mental encouragement.
• Angry Words Excluded: Harsh words uttered in a state of fury without premeditation do not constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC.
• Break in Proximity: A gap of 48 hours between the verbal quarrel and the act of suicide breaks the causal chain.
• Mens Rea Essential: Prosecution must establish intentional mental state aimed at driving the victim to end life.
• Protection of Citizens Against Over-Criminalization: Prevents ordinary family or matrimonial friction from being converted into felony trials.

The deceased, Chander Bhushan Singh, was the brother-in-law of the appellant Sanjay Singh Sengar.

On 25 July 1998, a domestic altercation occurred between the appellant and the deceased over the marital discord of the appellant's sister, during which the appellant allegedly abused the deceased and told him to 'go and die'.

Two days later, on 27 July 1998, the deceased was found hanging in his house, leaving a suicide note stating that Sanjay Singh Sengar was responsible for his death.

The police registered an FIR and filed a charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking discharge.

The appellant approached the Supreme Court, contending that words uttered in heat of passion cannot constitute abetment and that the suicide note did not disclose any criminal offense.

The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate to act. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment or in anger cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. In the present case, the appellant is alleged to have told the deceased 'to go and die'. It cannot be held that the appellant by telling the deceased 'to go and die' intended or stimulated the deceased to commit suicide. Even assuming that the appellant had uttered those words, it was in the course of a quarrel and cannot constitute an offense under Section 306 IPC. Furthermore, the deceased committed suicide two days after the alleged quarrel. It cannot be said that the suicide was the direct and proximate result of the quarrel. The deceased had two days to think and reflect. The charge-sheet filed against the appellant under Section 306 IPC is an abuse of process of court and is quashed.

• Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628: Applied Sanju Sengar to quash abetment charges against a supervisor who reprimanded an employee.
• SS Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190: Followed Sanju Sengar, holding that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person.
• Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan (2021) 19 SCC 144: Applied Sanju Sengar to student suicide case, holding that disciplinary action is not instigation.
• Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1598: Reiterated that demanding repayment of money or heated exchange is not abetment under Section 306.