Pabitra Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, 2026

Accused were convicted under Sections 306/34 IPC, alleging harassment and branding the deceased a thief.

The prosecution contended that the deceased was driven to suicide due to the actions and instigations of the accused.

Family members’ testimonies were inconsistent, and there was no independent corroboration of claims of harassment.

Investigation showed lapses, including failure to examine neighboring witnesses and to seize material evidence.

The Court emphasized that mere verbal harassment or scolding does not constitute abetment unless there is a direct act, instigation, or mens rea to drive someone to suicide.

Conviction set aside for all accused under Sections 306/34 IPC.

Court held that essential ingredients of abetment—instigation, mens rea, and a direct act causing the suicide—were not established beyond reasonable doubt.

Inconsistencies in family member testimonies and lack of independent corroboration weakened the prosecution’s case.

Noted serious lapses in investigation, including failure to examine neighbors and seize evidence.

Applied benefit of doubt, recognizing that alternative explanations—such as the deceased being upset due to scolding or allegations of theft—were plausible.

Reinforces that abetment of suicide requires positive, intentional act or instigation, not mere verbal harassment or suspicion.

Confirms that reasonable doubt and inconsistencies in evidence favor the accused.

Highlights the need for proper, thorough investigation, including examination of independent witnesses and collection of material evidence.

Aligns with Supreme Court precedent (Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) that suspicion or conjecture cannot substitute proof for abetment offences.