A suicide note was found pasted on a wall, following which the victim's father informed the police.
The victim's father claimed that Pintu Sarkar, Ragini and the appellant had harassed his daughter after obtaining an obscene photograph of her.
Memory card found months later not reliable: SCThe Supreme Court also found serious deficiencies in the prosecution's reliance on the memory card, which surfaced months after the incident.
Had such a record existed, the memory card would ordinarily have been discovered and seized at the outset, it said.
This left open the possibility that the memory card could have been planted or fabricated.
The Supreme Court recently set aside the summoning of a man as an additional accused in a suicide abetment case under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)[now Section 358 under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)], holding that the material against him did not satisfy the "more than prima facie" threshold laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014).
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih reiterated that while exercising powers under Section 319 CrPC, courts must be satisfied that the evidence is stronger than what is required at the stage of framing of charges, though it need not be sufficient to guarantee conviction if left unrebutted.
Court was hearing an appeal filed by Chandra Shekhar Jaysawal alias Sonu Jaysawal against the Allahabad High Court's decision refusing to interfere with an order of the Padrauna court summoning him to face trial.
Background: Suicide Case and Section 319 CrPC Proceedings
The case arose from the suicide of a 17-year-old girl on December 25, 2015. A suicide note was found pasted on a wall, following which the victim's father informed the police.
Three days later, on December 28, 2015, the father submitted another handwritten complaint alleging that one Pintu Sarkar and his wife Ragini had instigated his daughter to commit suicide. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered at Patherwa Police Station in Kushinagar district under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)[now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)].
A chargesheet was filed on February 5, 2016, only against Pintu Sarkar under Section 305 IPC, alleging that he had abetted the victim's suicide by blackmailing her over prior sexual exploitation. Notably, the appellant's name did not appear either in the initial information, the subsequent complaint or the chargesheet.
However, during the trial, the statements of the victim's parents, recorded in September and October 2017, referred to the discovery of a second suicide note and a memory card. Based on this material, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed seeking to summon the appellant and Ragini as additional accused.
The victim's father claimed that Pintu Sarkar, Ragini and the appellant had harassed his daughter after obtaining an obscene photograph of her. He further alleged that after bringing home the victim's belongings, he found a purse, a memory card and another suicide note in her bag.
According to this second note, the victim had written that Pintu Sarkar "wanted to marry me forcefully" and that Sonu "has done a lot of wrong with me," adding that she was ending her life because of the trouble caused by both of them.
The memory card allegedly contained a conversation between the victim and Pintu Sarkar, in which it was stated that the appellant had sexually assaulted the victim on an earlier occasion.
Relying on this material, the sessions court allowed the Section 319 application on December 21, 2019. The high court later dismissed the appellant's revision petition, with both courts concluding that there was more than prima facie evidence to summon him.
Why did the Supreme Court disagree?
Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant was never named in the father's complaints, the FIR or the police chargesheet.
The Bench observed that the father's own testimony showed he was allegedly aware of the appellant's misconduct before the victim's death and had even confronted him. If that were true, Court said, it was significant that the father never challenged the police investigation after the chargesheet omitted the appellant.
"If indeed such version were true... he did not lodge any protest petition... when, in the chargesheet, the appellant was not arraigned as an accused with Pintu Sarkar," the Bench observed.
At the same time, Court declined to hold this omission against the father, observing that it could reasonably be viewed as a human error caused by the trauma of losing his daughter.
The Bench then turned to the first suicide note, which clearly stated that the victim had taken the extreme step because of Pintu Sarkar alone.
The judges observed that although the victim may have been traumatised, it was unlikely that a girl of her age, just short of attaining majority, would omit the names of all those who had driven her to suicide if more than one person was immediately responsible.
"This circumstance does weigh with us heavily," the Bench said, holding that the appellant's absence from the contemporaneously recovered suicide note indicated that his alleged acts were not the immediate cause of the suicide.
Memory card found months later not reliable: SC
The Supreme Court also found serious deficiencies in the prosecution's reliance on the memory card, which surfaced months after the incident.
While acknowledging that delay alone does not make evidence inadmissible, Court said the explanation for the delayed discovery and the reliability of the evidence had to be carefully examined.
The mother claimed she recovered the memory card from the victim's bag. However, the Bench noted that she failed to explain when it was found, how it was recovered, how its contents were accessed, whether anyone helped retrieve the data or whether she informed any other person who could corroborate her version.
Significantly, the victim's father made no reference to the memory card in his own testimony, suggesting that he was completely unaware of its existence.
Court also found it surprising that there was no police seizure memo or inventory of the victim's bag. Had such a record existed, the memory card would ordinarily have been discovered and seized at the outset, it said.
The judges further questioned why the mother, after taking possession of her daughter's bag, did not examine its contents for several months.
Calling her conduct "quite unnatural", the Bench held that there was no credible explanation for the delayed emergence of the memory card.
It also found the chain of custody to be doubtful, observing that there was no evidence showing the victim's bag had remained securely preserved after it was handed over to the family. This left open the possibility that the memory card could have been planted or fabricated.
SC on abetment of suicide and Section 319 CrPC
Court further observed that even if both versions of the victim's alleged statements were accepted, the later version appeared to relate to an earlier incident without any direct nexus to the suicide.
Explaining the law on abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the Bench said the offence requires a live and proximate link between the accused's conduct and the suicide.
It emphasised that intention to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is an essential ingredient and that remote or disconnected acts cannot constitute abetment.
"Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment," the Bench observed.
Finding that the delayed production of the memory card, the absence of proof regarding its integrity and other surrounding circumstances cast serious doubt on its genuineness, Court concluded that the evidentiary threshold required under Hardeep Singh had not been met.
"We are, thus, satisfied that the test of more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction... is not fulfilled in the present case," the Bench held.
Case Title: Chandra Shekhar Jaysawal @ Sonu Jaysawal
Bench: Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih
Date of Judgment: June 3, 2026
