Karnataka High Court
Rajesh H G vs State By Madanayakanahalli P S on 21 June, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:22360
CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8176 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
RAJESH H G
S/O GURU PRASAD
AGED 35 YEARS
AROKYATHANAHALLI
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 162
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMEER S N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI P S
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560001
2. SHOBHA
Digitally signed W/O CHANNE GOWDA
by NAGAVENI AGED 35 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/O MADANAYAKANAHALLI,
COURT OF DASANAPURA HOBLI,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 162
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. THEJESH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. PRADEEP C. PATIL, ADV. FOR
SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.196/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF
IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:22360
CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.196/2023, registered for offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.N.Sameer, appearing for the petitioner, the learned HCGP Sri.P.Thejesh, appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.Pradeep C. Patil, appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The complainant is the wife of one Chenne Gowda, who commits suicide and therefore, the petitioner is dragged into these proceedings. A complaint comes to be registered by respondent No.2 on the death of her husband alleging that the petitioner had on several occasions yelled at the husband of the complainant saying 'go and die'. It is on the said statement, -3- NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 the husband of the complainant is said to have committed suicide. Whether that would amount to abetment to suicide, as obtaining under Section 306 of IPC or ingredients obtaining in Section 107 of IPC would be met or otherwise is necessary to be considered.
4. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as it is an admitted fact that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had yelled at the husband of the complainant by words 'go and die'.
Whether that would amount to abetment to suicide, as observed hereinabove need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.
5. This Court, in Crl.P.No.4851/2022 disposed on 22.04.2024 has answered the issue holding that it would not amount to an abetment to suicide. This Court has held as follows:
" 12. Before embarking upon analysis of such abetment on the facts obtaining in the case at hand qua the complaint or the charge sheet, I deem it appropriate to notice the law as laid down by the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 Apex Court from time to time in identical circumstances. Before noticing the judgments of the Apex court, I deem it appropriate to notice Section 306 of the IPC. It reads as follows:
"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 306 directs that whoever abets the commission of suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. Therefore, the soul of Section 306 is abetment. What is abetment is found in Section 107 of the IPC. Section 107 of the IPC reads as follows:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful -5- NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing."
(Emphasis supplied) Section 107 clearly mandates that if the accused intentionally aids any act against the victim which leads to the ingredients of Section 306, then it would apply. Therefore, the crux of Section 107 is intention of the accused should be to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, what is required is intentional mindset of the accused which would be mens rea. It must be a positive act of the accused to instigate commission of suicide. The Apex Court in plethora of judgments rendered from time to time has laid down principles for entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in cases where abetment to suicide is the offence alleged.
13. The Apex Court in the case of SWAMY PRAHALADDAS v. STATE OF M.P.1 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
2. The impugned order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is in confirmation of the order of the Court of Session, whereby, the appellant herein, has been summoned to face trial for offence under Section 306 IPC. The said order has been passed in this background:
Sushila Bai, respondent, a married woman, is alleged to have had two paramours, one was the deceased and the other is the appellant. It is alleged that there was sexual jealousy between the two.1
1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 The deceased was a married man. The prosecution alleges that Sushila Bai had completely bewitched him but her heart was with the appellant. On the morning of 13-6- 1992, all the three had a quarrel while sharing their morning tea. During that course, the appellant is said to have remarked for the deceased to go and die. The prosecution alleges that thereafter the deceased went home in a dejected mood, whereafter he committed suicide. The suicide has been termed as the direct cause for the treatment meted out to the deceased by the appellant. It is Sushila Devi though, who alone stands committed to the Court of Session to face trial because of her preferential treatment to the appellant.
3. At the time of framing of charge, the trial court thought it appropriate to associate the appellant herein as an accused because of the words he uttered to the deceased. We think that just on the basis of that utterance the Court of Session was in error in summoning the appellant to face trial. In the first place it is difficult, in the facts and circumstances, to come to even a prima facie view that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. Besides the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant. For these reasons, the error is apparent requiring rectification. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the High Court and that of the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 Court of Session are thus upset. The appellant need not face the charge."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court considers an identical circumstance where after a quarrel the accused is said to have remarked to the deceased to go and die. The Apex Court holds that mere utterance of the kind will not amount to suicide. The Apex Court in SANJU v. STATE OF M.P.2 was also considering a case where the accused in the fit of anger uttered the words 'go and die'. The Apex Court holds as follows:
".... .... ....
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased "to go and die". For this, courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 CrPC when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him "to go and die". Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased "to go and die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigate" denotes 2 (2002) 5 SCC 371 -8- NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25- 7-1998 ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27-7-1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27-7-1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25-7-1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below.
... ... ...
14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under Section 161 CrPC before the investigation officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26-7-1998 her -9- NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25-7-1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26-7-1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of "abetment" are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25-7-1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court then considers the purport of abetment and holds that it involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person to suicide. The Apex Court in S.S. CHHEENA v. VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN3 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a 3 (2010)12 SCC 190
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation."
(Emphasis supplied) A little later, in the case of AMALENDU PAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL4 the Apex Court holds as follows:
".... .... ....
12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of 4 (2010) 1 SCC 707
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
14. The expression "abetment" has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 A decade later, the Apex Court in the case of GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB5 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
13. Section 107 IPC defines "abetment" and in this case, the following part of the section will bear consideration:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or *** Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
14. The definition quoted above makes it clear that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing.
15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present matter is that both the trial court as well as the High Court never examined whether the appellant had 5 (2020) 10 SCC 200
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 the mens rea for the crime he is held to have committed. The conviction of the appellant by the trial court as well as the High Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might have committed suicide possibly because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced to take such a step on his account."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH6 holds as follows:
".... .... ....
8. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned order [Kanchan Sharma v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 6917] and other material placed on record. Except the self-serving statements of the complainant and other witnesses stating that the deceased was in love with the appellant, there is no other material to show that the appellant was maintaining any relation with the deceased. From the material placed on record it is clear that on the date of incident on 4-5-2018 the deceased went to the house of the appellant and consumed poison by taking out from a small bottle which he had carried in his pocket. Merely because he consumed poison in front of the house of the appellant, that itself will not indicate any relation of the appellant with the deceased.
9. "Abetment" involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in 6 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
10. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that the appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306IPC.
11. Even with regard to offence alleged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that except vague and bald statement that the appellant and other family members abused the deceased by uttering casteist words but there is nothing on record to show to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged offence also.
12. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023
13. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306IPC this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 712, paras 12-13) "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306IPC.""
The Apex Court later in DAXABEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT7 has held as follows:
".... .... .... 7 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 8. Section 306 of the IPC reads:
"306. Abetment of suicide. -If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
9. As argued by Ms. Shenoy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, what is required to constitute alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC is that there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide."
(Emphasis supplied) In its latest judgment rendered on March 1, 2024 the Apex Court in the case of KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA8 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
3. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant was earlier residing in the house of the deceased as a tenant though on the date of the incident he was residing elsewhere as the term of the lease agreement had expired. On 05.07.2000 at about 09:00 AM, the deceased was returning home after dropping the children of her sister in the school. When she had reached near the Canara Bank, the appellant was waiting there and teased her to marry him. The deceased refused to respond. Appellant threatened her that if she did not agree to marry him, he would destroy the family of her sisters, outrage their modesty and would kill them. After she reached home, she informed her sisters about the above incident over telephone. Thereafter, she consumed poison in the house. The neighbours saw through the window of the house the deceased lying on the 8 2024 SCC OnLine SC 216
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 floor in a painful condition. They got the door of the house opened. The deceased was suffering from pain due to consumption of poison. In the meanwhile, one of her sisters and her husband came to the house. All of them took the deceased to the Nirmala Devi Hospital whereafter she was shifted to the Mission Hospital. Ultimately, she died on 06.07.2000 at 07:30 PM.
... ... ...
60. In India attempt to commit suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC. This section provides that whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. But once the suicide is carried out i.e., the offence is complete, then obviously such a person would be beyond the reach of the law; question of penalising him would not arise. In such a case, whoever abets the commission of such suicide would be penalised under Section 306 IPC. Section 306 IPC reads as under:
306. Abetment of suicide- if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
61. Thus, as per Section 306 of IPC, if any person commits suicide, then whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
62. The crucial word in Section 306 of IPC is 'abets'. 'Abetment' is defined in Section 107 of IPC. Section 107 of IPC reads thus:
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023
107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
63. From a reading of Section 107 IPC what is deducible is that a person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing or if he encourages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission doing of that thing. Explanation 1 clarifies that even if a person by way of wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact which he is otherwise bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Similarly, it is clarified by way of Explanation-2 that whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission of an act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of that act.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023
64. Suicide is distinguishable from homicide inasmuch as it amounts to killing of self. This Court in M. Mohan v. State1 went into the meaning of the word suicide and held as under:
37. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self" and "cide"
means "killing", thus implying an act of self- killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
65. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of 2 Chhattisgarh , this Court delved into the meaning of the word 'instigate' or 'instigation' and held as under:
20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
66. Thus, this Court held that to 'instigate' means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of 'instigation', it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 specifically be suggestive of the consequence. But, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
67. Again in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State3, this Court elaborated further and observed that to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. This Court held as follows:
17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action;
provoke to action or reaction" (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).
18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
68. Thus, this Court has held that in order to prove that the accused had abetted the
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 commission of suicide by a person, the following has to be established:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above.
Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
69. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal4, this Court after referring to some of the previous decisions held that it has been the consistent view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative to put an end to her life. It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable. Thereafter, this Court held as under:
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
70. Similar is the view expressed by this court in Ude Singh (supra).
71. In Rajesh v. State of Haryana5, this Court after referring to Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC held as follows:
9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
72. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (supra), this Court observed that abetment would involve a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Delineating the intention of the legislature and having regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this Court, it was concluded that
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
73. Sounding a note of caution, this Court in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal observed that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
... ... ...
80. Human mind is an enigma. It is well neigh impossible to unravel the mystery of the human mind. There can be myriad reasons for a man or a woman to commit or attempt to commit suicide: it may be a case of failure to achieve academic excellence, oppressive environment in college or hostel, particularly for students belonging to the marginalized sections, joblessness, financial difficulties, disappointment in love or marriage, acute or chronic ailments, depression, so on and so forth. Therefore, it may not always be the case that someone
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 has to abet commission of suicide. Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself are relevant."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the case of KUMAR (supra) considers the entire spectrum of law and holds that human mind is an enigma. There can be myriad reasons for a man or woman or anyone to commit or attempt to commit suicide. Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself is relevant.
14. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the complaint, the summary of the charge sheet are all considered on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court what would unmistakably emerge is that the petitioner, the sole accused, husband of the lady with whom the deceased Father had certain relationship and had blunt out his anger and had uttered words 'go and hang yourself' cannot mean that it would become the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC - abetment to suicide. The complaint registered against the petitioner is by the Circle Inspector. It is undoubtedly a well drafted complaint to contend that it is the acts of the petitioner threatening the Father, the Father has committed suicide. The same goes with the summary of the charge sheet. The Apex Court in the case of MAHMOOD ALI V. STATE OF U.P9 has held as follows:
"13. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 9 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that the Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or even extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should read between the lines, looking to attending circumstances, emerging from the record and with due care and circumspection try to analyze the complaint. The Apex Court further holds that this Court need not restrict itself only to the stage of the case, but is empowered to take into consideration, overall circumstances leading to the initiation and materials collected in the course of the investigation.
15. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court (supra), and on an analysis of the well crafted complaint and summary of the charge sheet, this Court is of the considered view that permitting further proceedings despite a charge sheet being filed against the petitioner would undoubtedly lead the proceeding to become an abuse of the process of law, and result in patent injustice. It is in these circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL10 has clearly held that such cases should be nipped in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The reason for the deceased to commit suicide in the case at hand may be myriad, one of which could be the factum of him having illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner, despite being the Father and Priest of a Church. It is trite that human mind is an enigma and the task of unraveling the mystery of human mind can never be accomplished."
101992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023
6. In the case at hand, the investigation has led to filing of the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17, reads as follows:
" 17. ೇ ನ ಸಂ ಪ ಾ ಾಂಶ ಈ ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ೆ ಪ ಾಲಂ ನಂ.4 ರ , ಕಂಡ ಆ ೋ ಯು ಮೃತ ಚ$ೆ%ೕ&ೌಡರವ)ಂದ ಈ&ೆ+, ಮೂರು ವಷ-ಗಳ 0ಂ ೆ ೈ ಾಲ2ಾ3 8 ಲ4 ರೂಗಳನು% 5ೆ&ೆದು ೊಂಡು 'ಇದುವ ೆಗೂ ಒಂದು ರೂ8ಾ9 ಸಹ 2ಾಪ; ೊಡ ೆ, ಸ5ಾ9ಸು<ದು=, ಎಷು ?ಾ) ೇ@ದರೂ ಸಬೂಬು Bೇ@ ೊಂಡು ಬರು<ದ=ನು, C$ಾಂಕ 20-03-2022 ರಂದು ಮೃತ ಚ$ೆ%ೕ&ೌಡ ರವರು ಆ ೋ &ೆ ಹಣವನು% 0ಂCರು3ಸಲು ೇ@ ಾಗ, ಹಣವನು% ೊಡುವECಲ, ಏನು ?ೇ ಾದರೂ GಾH ೋ, ಎ Iಾದರೂ Bೋ3 ಾ9 ಎಂದು ?ೈ9ದು=, ಇದ)ಂದ ಮೃತ ಚ$ೆ%ೕ&ೌಡ ರವರು ಮನ J&ೆ ?ೇKಾರು GಾH ೊಂಡು, Lೕವನದ , Lಗು8ೆJ &ೊಂಡು C$ಾಂಕ 21-03-2022 ರಂದು ?ೆಳ3ನ Kಾವ 4:30 ಗಂMೆ9ಂದ 5:00 ಗಂMೆಯ ಮಧOದ ತಮP 2ಾಸದ ಮ$ೆಯ MಾQR Bೋಗುವ ಸಂCಯ Sಟ ನ ತUೆ&ೋUೆ&ೆ ತನೂPಲಕ 5ಾ$ೇ ?ಾVJ 8ಾOWಂX Gಾಡುವ ಚಪYMೆIಾದ 8ಾ V ಹಗ+Cಂದ $ೇಣು Z3ದು ೊಂಡು ಮೃತ ಪ ರು5ಾ ೆ, ಈ ಾ[&ೆ ಎ1 ಆ ೋ ಾರಣ$ಾ3ರು5ಾ$ೆಂತ ಇದುವ ೆ3ನ ತ\]ೆ9ಂದ ಮತು ಾ ಾರರ Bೇ@ ೆ9ಂದ ದೃಢ ಪ ರು5ೆ ಆದ=)ಂದ ಆ ೋ ಯ [ರುದ_ ಕಲಂ 306 ಐ )ೕ< Bೊ)ಸಲYಟ ಈ ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ೆ ಪ ."
7. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would indicate that the only offence against the petitioner is that he had hurled abuse against the husband of the complainant to 'go and die', when he had demanded money of
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:22360 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2023 Rs.8 lakhs that the petitioner had allegedly borrowed. This is completely answered by what this Court has held (supra).
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed;
ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.196/2023 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner, stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52