Supreme Court of India· 18 August 2025
Do the statutory presumptions in Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 show that a proximate trigger is required for abetment of suicide?
Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2025 INSC 990 · Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024
Coram: B. R. Gavai; K. Vinod Chandran
Answer
Yes. Those presumptions were drawn by the legislature carefully incorporating the requirement of a proximate trigger, Sections 113B and 304B both requiring that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment. That exercise would not have been necessary if Section 107 permitted a finding of abetment without conscious instigation constituting mens rea, and it cannot be that a trigger is needed where a woman dies within seven years of marriage but not otherwise. The necessity to find a trigger, proximate to the suicide, cannot at all be wished away.
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.306 — s.107 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.113A — s.113B — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Abetment of suicide — Proximate trigger — Mens rea —
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.306 — Abetment of suicide — Proximate prior act required —
Held: Even where harassment is constant and continued over a long period, a proximate prior act must be found before the suicide can be treated as its direct consequence. Continuous harassment alone cannot establish a positive instigation constituting abetment. (¶22)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.107 — Mens rea — Intention of the accused, not the victim’s mind —
Held further: Mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator, discernible from conscious acts or words — not what goes on in the mind of the victim. Without a conscious deliberate intention, however harsh the harassment, there is no abetment. (¶23)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.113A — s.113B — Statutory presumptions — Proximate trigger confirmed —
Held further: The presumptions aiding Sections 498A and 304B were enacted carefully incorporating the requirement of a proximate trigger, which therefore cannot be absent for abetment. Where the suicide note is suspect and no proximate trigger appears, quashing is right; appeals dismissed. (¶25, 28, 40)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 25In this context, useful reference can be made to Sections 113A & 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 providing statutory presumptions in aid of Sections 498A & 304B, respectively, of the IPC. When a woman dies by suicide within seven years of her marriage, if it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relative, there arises a presumption that the husband or such relative abetted the suicide, in which event the penalty under Section 306 is attracted. The presumption under Section 113A was statutorily employed by the Parliament, realizing the menace and in an attempt to prevent domestic violence unleashed on women in the patriarchal society, by deterrence. This exercise would not have been necessary if Section 107 did provide for finding abetment without conscious instigation constituting mens rea. This Court held in Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana[^17] that the provision only enabled the court to presume on the abetment, having due regard to all other circumstances of the case and drawing such presumption is purely within the discretion of the Court.
Paragraph 28Disputes in marital spaces are not uncommon. Tragically dowry demands, despite punitive legislation, is the major cause for domestic violence, unnatural death and suicide within marital spaces. Hence, a presumption was drawn on the dowry death of a woman, within 7 years of marriage, by the legislature, carefully incorporating the requirement of a proximate trigger. It cannot be said that the said requirement is absent in bringing home a conviction for abetment to suicide. If it is so held, then it would follow that when a poor woman commits suicide within 7 years of her marriage, pursuant to a “soon before” incident, it would be a dowry death. But if the death occurs after 7 years, then there will be no reason to look for a proximate trigger. The necessity to find a trigger, proximate to the suicide cannot at all be wished away.
Acts & Sections
s.306 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.107 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.113A Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.113B Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.304B Indian Penal Code, 1860s.498A Indian Penal Code, 1860s.108 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s.45 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →