Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha N P vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34107
CRL.P No.7602/2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7602/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATHA N.P.
S/O LATE PACHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT. NUGGAHALLI VILLAGE
YALAVALA HOBLI, MYSURU 570026.
Digitally signed
2. B.N. RAVIKUMAR
by NAGAVENI S/O NANJUNDEGOWDA
Location: High AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
Court of R/AT NO.182, KILLEMOHALLA
Karnataka C-ZONE, NACHANAHALLI KOPPALURU
NEAR VITTAL DHAMA, J P NAGAR
3RD STAGE, MYSURU 570008
(IN FIR HIS NAME IS SHOWN AS
BANNURU RAVI).
3. RAMESHA
S/O HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.326, B BLOCK
13TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN
J P NAGAR, MYSURU 570001
(IN FIR HIS NAME IS SHOWN AS
CASSETTE RAMESH).
4. MAHADEVA
S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.2076/1, DURGAMMA TEMPLE CROSS
DHANAVATRI ROAD
DEVARAJAMOHALLA, MYSURU 570001
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34107
CRL.P No.7602/2024
HC-KAR
(IN FIR HIS NAME IS SHOWN AS
CASSETTE CRATE MAHADEVA).
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LETHIF B, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KRISHNARAJA POLICE STATION
MYSURU DISTRICT
REP BY THE SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE 560001.
2. PREMAKUMARI
W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT KARANAKUPPE VILLAGE
HANAGODU HOBLI
HUNASUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT 571105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESH , ADDL. SPP FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.516/2024 OF
KRISHNARAJA P.S., MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306, 34
OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF IV JMFC COURT, MYSURU, WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:34107
CRL.P No.7602/2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners - accused Nos.1, 4, 5, & 6 are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.516/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri.Lethif B., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.B.N.Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The facts adumbrated are as follows:
An agreement of sale is entered into between the petitioner No.1 and son-in-law of the respondent No.2 -
complainant. On 17.06.2023, it transpires that the son-in-law had requested the APMC to issue an NOC to sell the shop premises. It transpires that on 27.08.2023, the son-in-law of the complainant commits suicide. On commission of suicide, the complainant registers a crime in Crime No.69/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC.
The police conduct investigation and the result of the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR investigation is filing of the charge sheet and the concerned Court registering C.C.No.516/2024. The petitioners had approached this Court at the time of registration of the crime and this Court had granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings in Criminal Petition No.4655/2024. Before the interim order could be communicated, the charge sheet was filed by the jurisdictional Police before the concerned Court, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition on the said prayer.
4. Sri.B.Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is not a titter of ingredient in the case at hand for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. There is neither proximity, nor wording, nor instigation of the son-in-law of the complainant to commit suicide. An agreement of sale was entered into two months prior to the date of death to sell the shop premises in the APMC. The agreement goes wrong and the son-in-law of the complainant commits suicide, therefore, the blame cannot be laid to the petitioners for instigating such suicide. The -5- NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR complainant is served on 21.09.2024 itself and has not represented even as on date.
5. Sri.B.N.Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions of the petitioners to contend that the police after investigation, have filed a charge sheet. In the light of the charge sheet filed by the police, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial. He would submit that the ingredients necessary for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC is undoubtedly present in the case at hand. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts linked in the chain of events are all a matter of record. An agreement of sale entered into in the month of June, 2023, goes wrong and the executant of the agreement one Mahadevswamy commits suicide on the score that the agreement had gone wrong. The blame is now laid at the doors of these petitioners, who are said to have -6- NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR instigated the abetment of suicide. Since the entire issue triggered from the registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint, it reads as follows:
"ರವ ೆ
ಾ ಾ ಾ ಗಳ ,
ಕೃಷ ಾಜ ೕ ಾ ೆ,
ೖಸೂರು ನಗರ.
ಇಂದ
"ೆ#ೕಮಕು%ಾ ೋಂ &ೇ' ಚಂದ#ಪ*,
28 ವಷ+ ಂ ಾ,ತ ಜ.ಾಂಗ,
ಕರಣಕು"ೆ* ಾ#ಮ, ಹನ ೋಡು 2ೋಬ4,
ಹುಣಸೂರು 5ಾಲೂ7ಕು, ೖಸೂರು 8&ೆ7,
9. ನಂ. 9945214198.
<ಷಯ: ನನ> ಮಗಳ ಅ@5ಾ 40 ವಷ+, ಅ4ಯ ಮಹAೇವBಾCD 49 ವಷ+, 2ಾಗೂ 9ಮEಕFGಾದ ಚಂದ#ಕ&ಾ 16 ವಷ+ ಮತುH ಧನಲJK 15 ವಷ+ ಎಂಬುವವರುಗಳ ಆತEಹ5ೆN %ಾO ೊಳPಲು ಾರಣ ಾದ 1) ಮಂಜು.ಾಥ 2) ಆತನ 2ೆಂಡR 3) ೋSೆ ಹುಂO ಮಹAೇವ
4) ಬನೂ>ರು ರ< 5) ಾNBೆ' ರ ೕಶ (ಎ.U.ಎಂ.V) ಮತುH 6) V.2ೆW ೆ#ೕ' ಮಹAೇವಣ ರವರ <ರುದX ಾನೂರು ೕ5ಾN Yರಮ ೈ ೊಳPಲು ೋ .
.ಾನು ೕಲFಂಡ <Gಾಸ 7 ZಾಸZಾ[ದುX ೊಂಡು ವNವBಾಯ %ಾO ೊಂOರು5ೆHೕ.ೆ. ನನ> ಗಂಡ ಚಂದ#ಪ* ರವ ಾ[ದುX, ಒಟು^ 5 ಜನ ಮಕF4ದುX 9ದಲ.ೆಯವರು ಅಂ_ಕರವ ಾ[ದುX, ಇವರನು> 2ಾಸನ 8&ೆ7 ZಾV Aೊ ೇಂದ# ರವ ೆ ೊಟು^ ಮದುZೆ %ಾOರು5ೆHೕZೆ. 2.ೇಯವರು ಅ@5ಾ ರವ ಾ[ದುX, ಇವರನು> ಈ ೆa b.ಾಂಕ:
16.12.2006ರ 7 ೖಸೂರು 5ಾಲೂ7ಕು ಜಯಪcರ 2ೋಬ4ಯ ಬರಡ.ೆಪcರ ಾ#ಮದ ZಾV Bೋಮಪ* ಎಂಬುವವರ ಮಗ.ಾದ ಮಹAೇವ BಾCD ಎಂಬುವವ ೆ ಲಗ> %ಾOರು5ೆHೕ.ೆ.
3.ೇಯವರು ಅdC@ರವ ಾ[ದುX ಇವರನು> ಹುಣಸೂರು 5ಾಲೂ7ಕು _4 ೆ ೆ 2ೋಬ4ಯ ಶಂಖನಹ4P ಾ#ಮದ ZಾV ೆಂಡಗಣBಾCD ಎಂಬುವ ೆ ೊಟು^ ಮದುZೆ %ಾOರು5ೆHೕZೆ
4.ೇಯವರು ಆfಾ ರವ ಾ[ದುX ಇವರನು> ೖಸೂರು 5ಾಲೂ7ಕು gನಕh ZಾV ಅfೆiೕಕ ಎಂಬುವ ೆ ೊಟು^ <Zಾಹ %ಾOರು5ೆHೕZೆ. 5.ೇಯವರು ರ<ಕು%ಾj ರವ ಾ[ದುX ನಮE kೊ5ೆಯ 7lೕ ಮ.ೆಯ 7lೕ ZಾಸZಾ[ರು5ಾH ೆ.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR ನನ> 2.ೇ ಮಗಳ ಅ@5ಾ ರವರನು> 2006ರ 7 ಮದುZೆ %ಾO ನಂತರ ಅವಳ ಮತುH ಅವಳ ಗಂಡ ಇಬmರೂ ೖಸೂ ೆ ಬಂದು ZಾಸZಾ[ದುX, ನನ> ಮಗಳ ಅ@5ಾ ಮ.ೆಯ 7lೕ ಇರುRHದXಳ ನನ> ಅ4ಯ ಮಹAೇವBಾCD ರವರು ಆjಎಂVಯ ತರ ಾ %ಾರುಕSೆ^ಯ 7 ದ&ಾ74nಾ[ ೆಲಸ %ಾO ೊಂOದXನು. ನನ> ಮಗಳ ಅ@5ಾ ಮದುZೆnಾ[ ಬಂAಾ[@ಂದ ನಮE ಮ.ೆ ೆ ಬರುವcದನು> @ 7V_ಟ^ರು. ನನ> ಮಗಳ ಮತುH ಅ4ಯ@ ೆ ಇಬmರು 2ೆಣು ಮಕF4ದುX 9ದಲ.ೆಯವಳ ಚಂದ#ಕ&ಾ 16 ವಷ+ ಮತುH 2.ೆ ಯವರು ಧನಲJK 15 ವಷ+Zಾ[ರು5ಾH ೆ.
ನನ> ಮಗಳ ಅ4ಯ kೆ.U ನಗರದ Bೆ>ೕY "ಾY+ ಬ4 ಮ.ೆ %ಾO ೊಂOದXರು, ಆಗ .ಾವcಗಳ ಬಂದು 2ೋ[ %ಾಡುRHAೆXವc ಈ ೆa 2 Rಂಗಳ gಂAೆ ಮ.ೆ oಾ %ಾO ೊಮಡು ಬಂದು pಾಮುಂOಪcರಂನ 3.ೇ ಾ# ನ ಮ.ೆ ನಂ.2847 ರ 7 qಾOಕ ೆ ಮ.ೆ %ಾO ೊಂಡು ZಾಸZಾ[ದXರು. ಈ bನ ಮAಾNಹ> ಸು%ಾರು 2: 00 ಗಂSೆ ಸಮಯದ 7 ನಮE ಸಂಬ ಕ ಾದ ೆಂಪನಂಜಪ* ಎಂಬುವರು ನನ> ಮಗ@ ೆ rೕs %ಾO ಅ@5ಾ ಮತುH ಅವಳ ಗಂಡ ಮಕFಳ ಎಲ7ರೂ Rೕ 2ೋ[ರು5ಾH ೆ ಬ@> ಎಂದು R4V ೖಸೂ ೆ ಬರುವಂ5ೆ 2ೇ4ದರು. ಆಗ .ಾನು ನನ> ಮಗ ರ<ಕು%ಾರ.ೊಂb ೆ ೖಸೂ ೆ ಬಂದು ನನ> ಮಗಳ ಅ@5ಾ qಾO ೆ ೆ ZಾಸZಾ[ದX ಮ.ೆಯ ಬ4 ಬಂದು ಮ.ೆಯ gಂqಾ[ ನ ಮೂಲಕ ಒಳ ೆ 2ೋ[ .ೋಡ&ಾ[ ನಯ 2ಾhನ 7 ನನ> ಮಗಳ ಅ@5ಾ pೇjನ 7 ಕು4ತ ೕRಯ 7 ಮೃತಪt^ದುX, ನನ> ಅ4ಯ ಮಹAೇವBಾCD .ೆಲದ ೕ&ೆ ಮಲ[ದ ೕRಯ 7 ಮೃತಪt^ರು5ಾH.ೆ. 9ಮEಗಳ ಚಂದ#ಕ&ಾ Aಾರbಂದ .ೆಣು _[ದ ೕRಯ 7 .ೇ5ಾಡುRHದುX ಮ5ೊHಬm 9ಮEಗಳ ಧನಲJK ರೂಂನ 7 ಮಲ[ದ ೕRಯ 7 ಮೃತ ಪt^ರು5ಾH ೆ. ಎಲ7ರ Aೇಹವc ೊGೆತ VuRಯ 7ದುX ಎಲ7ರೂ nಾವcAೋ <ಷ Bೇವ.ೆ %ಾO ೊಂಡು ಮೃತಪt^ರುವ ೕR ಕಂಡುಬಂbರುತHAೆ. ನಮE ಸಮುEಖದ 7 ಮನಯ 7 ಹುಡುಕ&ಾ[ ೆಲವc ಪತ#ಗಳ VvFದುX, ಆ ಪತ#ವನು> ನನ> ಮಗ ರ<ಕು%ಾರ ಓbದುX, ಅದರ 7 ನಮE Bಾ< ೆ ಎs.U ಮಂಜು.ಾಥ ಮತುH ಅವರ 2ೆಂಡR 2ಾಗೂ ೋSೆ ಹುಂO ಮಹAೇವ, ಬನೂ>ರು ರ<, ಾNBೆ' ರ ೕಶ (ಎUಎಂV) ಮತುH V2ೆW ೆ#ೕ' %ಾAೇವಣ ರವರು ಾರಣ ಎಂದು ಬ ೆbರು5ಾH ೆ. ನನ> ಮಗಳ ಮತುH ಅ4ಯ 2ಾಗೂ 9ಮEಕFಳ ಆತEಹ5ೆN %ಾO ೊಳPಲು ಈ ೕಲFಂಡವರುಗಳ vರುಕುಳZೇ ಾರಣZಾ[ರುತHAೆ, ಆದX ಂದ ಅವರುಗಳ <ರುದx ಾನೂನು ೕ5ಾN ಕ#ಮ ೈ ೊಂಡು ಆತE ಹ5ೆN %ಾO ೊಂOರುವ ನನ> ಮಗಳ ಅ@5ಾ 40 ವಷ+ ಅ4ಯ ಮಹAೇವBಾCD 49 ವಷ+ ಮತುH 9ಮEಕFGಾದ ಚಂದ#ಕ&ಾ 16 ವಷ+ 2ಾಗೂ ಧನಲJK 15 ವಷ+ ರವರುಗಳ Bಾ< ೆ .ಾNಯ ಒದ[ಸqೇ ೆಂದು ೋರು5ೆHೕ.ೆ.
ತಮE <fಾCV, "ೆ#ೕಮಕು%ಾ -8- NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR b.ಾಂಕ: 27.03.2023 ರಂದು ಸಮಯ ಮAಾNಹ> 3:15 ರ 7 Unಾ+ದುAಾರರು ಾ ೆ ೆ 2ಾಜ ಾ[ @ೕOದ ದೂರನು> VCೕಕ V ಾ ಾ 9.ಸಂ 69/2023 ಕಲಂ 306 ೆ.< 34 ಐUV 5ಾN ಪ#ಕರಣ Aಾಖ Vರು5ೆHೕ.ೆ.
ಸg/-"
8. The jurisdictional police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet against these petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC.
Summary of the charge sheet as obtained in Column No.17 reads as follows:
"17. ೇVನ ಸಂJಪH Bಾ ಾಂಶ ಕಲಂ 306 ೆ.< 34 ಐUV ೖಸೂರು ನಗರ ಕೃಷ ಾಜ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹbXನ pಾಮುಂOಪcರಂನ 3.ೇ ಾ# ನ ರುವ ಮ.ೆ ನಂ-2847ರ ºÁ¯ï ಮತುH ರೂಂನ b: 24/08/2023 ಂದ b: 27/08/2023ರ ಮAಾNಹ> 2-00 ಗಂSೆಯ ನಡುZೆ ೖಸೂ ನ ZಾV ಮಹAೇವBಾCD, ಆತನ 2ೆಂಡR ಅ@5ಾ, {ಕF ಮಗಳ ಧನಲJK, <ಷBೇವ.ೆ %ಾOಯು, Aೊಡ| ಮಗಳ ಚಂದ#ಕ&ಾ ºÀUÀ΢AzÀ .ೇಣು2ಾv ೊಂಡು ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ ಇದ ೆF ಈ Aೋ}ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪತ#ದ ಾಲಂ ನಂ- 12ರ . ಕಂಡ ಆ ೋUತರ "ೈv ಎ1 ಆ ೋUಯು ಮೃತ ಮಹAೇವBಾCDರವ ೆ Bೇ ದ ಬಂO"ಾಳNದ ಏUಎಂV nಾ•+ ನ 7ನ 5.ೇ ಾ# ನ ರುವ ಮ4 ೆ ನಂ-59ನು> ಖ ೕb %ಾಡುವ ಸಲುZಾ[ ಎ4 ಂದ ಎ6 ವ ೆ[ನ ಆ ೋUತರುಗಳ kೊ5ೆ Bೇ b: 17/06/2023 ರಂದು AಾCರ ಾ 2ೋSೆhನ 7 42 ಲ€ ೆF %ಾ ಾಟ %ಾಡಲು %ಾತುಕ5ೆnಾO ಅ•ಾCs‚ ಆ[ 32ಲ€ ರೂ ಹಣವನು> @ೕO ಅ[# ಂ' %ಾO ೊಂOದುX, ನಂತರ ಮೃತ ಮಹAೇವBಾCD ರವ ೆ ಸದ ಮ4 ೆ %ಾ ಾಟದ ನಂತರ &ೈಸs gÀzÁÝUÀĪÀ <pಾರ R4ದು, ಮಹAೇವBಾCD ಮತುH ಆತನ 2ೆಂಡR ಅ@5ಾರವರು ಮರುbನ b: 18/06/2023 ರಂದು ಎ1, ಎ4, ಎ5 ಮತುH ಎ6 ಆ ೋUತರುಗಳನು> ತಮE ಮ4 ೆ ಬ4 ಬರ%ಾO ೊಂಡು, .ಾವc ಮ4 ೆ %ಾ ಾಟ %ಾಡುವcbಲ7 @ಮE ಹಣವನು> Zಾಪ ೊಡು5ೆHೕZೆಂದು ೇ4 ೊಂ•ಾಗ ಎ1 ರವರು @ೕವc ಪ•ೆbರುವ 32 ಲ€ ೆF ಮ5ೆH 32 ಲ€ Bೇ V ೊಡqೇಕು, ಇಲ7. @ಮE ಮnಾ+Aೆ ಕGೆಯು5ೆHೕZೆ, @ನ> ಮತುH @ನ> 2ೆಂಡR ೕ&ೆ ಾನೂನು ೕR ೇ 2ಾvಸು5ೆHೕZೆಂದು 2ೆದ VದುX, ನಂತರ C°èzÀÝ ಎ4 ಂದ ಎ6 ವ ೆ[ನ ಆ ೋUತರುಗ4 ೆ ಮ4 ೆ %ಾ ಾಟ -9- NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR ತ•ೆಯುವಂ5ೆ ೇ4 ೊಂ•ಾಗ, ಅವರುಗಳ ಸ2ಾ ಆ[# ಂ' ಆ ೋ[Aೆ ಈಗ ಏನು %ಾಡಲು ಆಗುವcbಲ7, ಸುಮE.ೆ ಅವ ೆ 8ಸ^j %ಾO ೊಟು^ @ನ> ಮnಾ+Aೆ ಉ4ಸು ೊ ಎಂದು qೆದ V, b: 27/06/2023 ರಂದು BಾC ೕನ ರgತ ¹ÜgÀ ಸCRHನ ಶುದx ಕ#ಯದ ಕ ಾರು ಪತ#ವನು> %ಾOV ೊಂOದುX ಮಹAೇವBಾCD ಮತುH ಅ@5ಾರರು ಇವರುಗಳ qೆದ ೆ 2ಾಗು vರುಕುಳbಂದ qೇಸತುH, %ಾನVಕZಾ[ .ೊಂದು 8ೕವನದ fUÀÆ¥ÉìUÉÆAqÀÄ ಬದುಕಲು qೇ ೆ Aಾ ಇಲ7Aೆ ಆತEಹ5ೆN %ಾO ೊಳPಲು Rೕ%ಾ+@VAಾಗ, ತಂAೆ 5ಾ, ಇಲAೆ ಒಬmಂtnಾ[ ಬದುಕಲು BಾಧNZಾಗದ ಅವರ ಮಕFGಾದ ಚಂದ#ಕ&ಾ ಮತುH ಧನಲJKರವರು ಸ2ಾ ಅವರ kೊ5ೆ Bೇ V ೊಂಡು ಮಹAೇವBಾCD, ಅ@5ಾ, ಧನಲJKರವರುಗಳ <ಷBೇವ.ೆ%ಾO, ಚಂದ#ಕ&ಾರವರು .ೇಣು2ಾv ೊಂಡು ಆತEಹ5ೆN %ಾO ೊಂOರುವcದು ಇದುವ ೆ[ನ ತ@oೆ,ಂದಲೂ 2ಾಗೂ Uಎಂ ವರb,ಂದಲೂ ಕಂಡು ಬಂbದುX ಇದ ೆF ಎ1, ಎ4, ಎ5 ಮತುH ಎ6 ವ ೆ[ನ ಆ ೋUತರುಗಳ ಪ#pೋದ.ೆ 2ಾಗೂ zÀĵÉàÃgÀuÉ ಾರಣ Zಾ[ರುವcದು ತ@oೆ,ಂದ ದೃಢಪt^ರು5ೆH. ಆದX ಂದ ೕಲFಂಡ ಕಲಂ ೕ5ಾN ಎ1, ಎ4, ಎ5 ಮತುH ಎ6 ಆ ೋUತರುಗಳ <ರುದx ಘನ .ಾNnಾಲಯ ೆF Aೋ}ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪತ#ವನು> ಸ Vರು5ೆH."
9. If the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is that the allegation against these petitioners for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is loosely laid against these petitioners. For an offence to become punishable under Section 306 of the IPC what is necessary is the ingredients of abetment to be present. Abetment is defined under 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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR 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.
Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
10. The complaint and summary of the charge sheet is juxtaposed and read, the ingredients of abetment are completely absent in the case at hand. The issue whether such acts would become abetment to suicide need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in plethora of judgments has considered the issue as to what would become an offence under Section 306 of IPC, it would mean only if the ingredients under Section 107 of the IPC are
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR present. The Apex Court is the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka through SHO Kakati Police1, the Apex Court has held as follows:
".... .... ....
18. Section 306 IPC defines abetment of suicide which reads as under:
"306. 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."
19. It provides for the punishment for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, 'abetment' of suicide is an essential element for punishing a person for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
20. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC and it reads as under:
"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."
21. The very first clause of the aforesaid provision lays down that a person, who abets the 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3541
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR doing of a thing, is a person who instigates any person to do that thing. Therefore, 'instigation' to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a person with abetment.
22. 'Instigation' is to provoke, incite or encourage a person to do an act.
23. This Court has repeatedly observed that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a particular thing and without the positive act on part of the accused there would be no instigation. It has also been observed that to convict a person for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused to abet such a crime and it requires an active act or a direct act leading to the commission of suicide.
24. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, a three Judges Bench of this Court dealt with a case of suicide by the wife, where the husband in anger uttered-'You are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like'. Thereafter, the wife committed suicide. The Court, after examining the meaning of instigation which is an essential element for abetment of suicide, observed that such words, uttered out of emotion, do not constitute mens rea and do not amount to intentionally inciting the other party to actually do an act which may result in the commission of self- killing/suicide.
25. Even in cases where the victim commits suicide, which may be as a result of cruelty meted out to her, the Courts have always held that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society and that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Surely, until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR
26. The salient features constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and it was observed as under:
"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation"
and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44. Abetment involves 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.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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 disease to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the disease in two such a position that he/she committed suicide."
27. The same aspects have been reiterated by this Court in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal and have been again repeated in Prabhu v. State represented by Inspector of Police.
28. In Prabhu (supra) the Court further observed that broken relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life and that breaking-up of the relationship would not constitute any instigation or abetment of suicide inasmuch as in order to constitute 'Instigation' it
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.
29. There is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused-appellant has in any way instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The accused-appellant on asking of the deceased had simply refused to marry her which is not a positive act on his part with any intention to abet the crime of suicide.
30. If we examine the instant case on the touch stone of the above principles of law, we find that the accused-appellant had simply refused to marry the deceased and thus, even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide. The accused-appellant had not provoked the deceased in any manner to kill herself; rather the deceased herself carried poison in a bottle from her village while going to Kakati, Karnataka with a predetermined mind to positively get an affirmation from the accused-appellant to marry her, failing which she would commit suicide. Therefore, in such a situation simply because the accused-appellant refused to marry her, would not be a case of instigating, inciting or provoking the deceased to commit suicide.
31. Even assuming, though there is no evidence that the accused-appellant promised to marry the deceased, that there was such a promise, it is again a simple case of a broken relationship for which there is a different cause of action, but not prosecution or conviction for an offence under Section 306, specially in the facts and circumstances of the case where no guilty intention or mens rea on the part of the accused-appellant had been established.
(emphasis supplied)
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR
11. The Apex Court again in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2 has held as follows:
"12. As is clear from the plain language of the sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly -- 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.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943] , the appellant remarked to the deceased that "go and die" and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that : (SCC p. 439, para 3) "3. ... 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."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] , this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to 2 (2025) 4 SCC 801
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , this Court held as under : (SCC p. 712, para
12) "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."
(emphasis supplied)
16. 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.
17. M. Mohan v. State [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] followed Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , wherein it was held as under : (M. Mohan case
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] , SCC p. 637, para 41) "41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under : (SCC p. 629) '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.' In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."
18. Thereafter, this Court in M. Mohan [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] held :
(SCC p. 638, para 45) "45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
(emphasis supplied)
19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
20. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar."
(emphasis supplied) and in the case of LAXMI DAS vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS3, it is held as follows:
".... .... ....
7. Section 306 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference:
"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."
We must read Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC which defines 'Abetment'; and it reads as below:
"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 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 120
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR 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."
8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
9. The Appellant has placed strong reliance upon the judgment in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra, wherein this Court has interpreted Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and observed:
"8. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'. When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.
...
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband."
10. In Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, this Court has further interpreted the offence as below:
"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well- established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide."
11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to cases that define the act of 'instigation'. Accordingly, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, this Court observed:
"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
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR 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."
12. Reliance is to be placed upon Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., wherein the Supreme Court held:
"43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life."
13. Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the High Court and Trial Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet and the witness statements, are taken to be correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the Appellant. We find that the acts of the Appellant are too remote and indirect to constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC. There is no allegation against the Appellant of a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing suicide.
14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure on the deceased to end the relationship between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased's family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant expressed her disapproval towards the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR marriage of Babu Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC."
(emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in its latest judgment rendered in the case of ABHINAV MOHAN DELKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA4, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
13. It is very pertinent that a reading of the above decisions would only indicate that always a proximate incident or act prior to the suicide was held to be a very relevant aspect in finding the death to be a direct causation of the acts of the person accused of abetting the suicide. We think it apt to look at the decisions discussed in Ude Singh. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh which was a case in which the husband pursuant to a quarrel asked the wife to go wherever she pleased, after which she set herself ablaze. This Court opined that the wife, on the husband freeing her, impulsively felt that she could do nothing but kill herself. It was held so in paragraph 20:
"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 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR 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."
[underlining in all the extracts, by us, for emphasis]
14. This Court also relied on State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, wherein it was held so:
"If it transpires to the court that a 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 in a given society 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."
15. Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh was a case of elopement which resulted in a criminal prosecution against the boy, later acquitted on the girl's testimony in his favour. The boy continued to harass the girl, holding her responsible for the criminal proceeding initiated and even threatened to kidnap her; which proximate threat led to the girl setting herself ablaze. A dying declaration in the form of a letter, pinned the responsibility of her death on the accused. While upholding the conviction entered into by the High Court reversing the acquittal by the Trial Court, this Court held so on the scope of the words 'abetment' and 'instigate':
"43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.
44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The active acts of the accused have led the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any material on record which compels the Court to conclude that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged. On the other hand, the accused has played active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her life spark."
Here again the live link, to the just prior threat was emphasised while also noticing the fact that a young girl living in a village setting, also belonging to the poor strata of society, was threatened and teased constantly, resulting in her resort to the extreme step. The accused would have known that his acts would lead to the drastic consequence.
16. Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal also held:
"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 306 IPC is not sustainable."
17. S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan emphasised the requirement of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide. Looking at Section 306, it was held so:
"... 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
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
18. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) spoke on the suicidal ideation and behaviour in human beings which were complex and multifaceted (sic). It was held that:
"Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self."
19. Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat was a case in which the accused was alleged to have continuously harassed and insulted the deceased and spoken as to how he was still alive despite the insults levelled. There was also a suicide note in which the deceased, a driver, accused his employer of having driven him to suicide. Despite such an allegation in the suicide note, this Court found that there was absolutely nothing in the suicide note or the F.I.R. which could even distantly be viewed as an offence, much less under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
20. Again, the ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. was interpreted by one of us in Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (B.R. Gavai J., as he then was) in the following manner:
"14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide."
21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused, in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained.
22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, 'the straw that broke the camel's back'; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR
23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.
24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to "go, kill yourself"; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306."
(emphasis supplied)
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR In all the afore-quoted judgments, the Apex Court has clearly held that the complaint should not be registered only to assuage the family of the deceased, there should be some ingredient for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC to be present in the complaints so registered. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand is considered on the elucidation of the Apex Court has quoted hereinabove, the unmistakable inference would be that the complaint registered against the petitioners could have been on the score that there was neither abetment, nor wording, nor proximity to the incident of suicide of the son-
in-law of the complainant. The agreement that is entered into two (02) months ago has become the instigation for suicide and the blame is laid to the doors of the petitioners. This is sans countenance in the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed and the proceedings to be obliterated.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER i. Petition is allowed.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34107 CRL.P No.7602/2024 HC-KAR ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.516/2024 of Krishnaraja Police Station, Mysuru, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC on the file of IV JMFC Court, Mysuru, qua the petitioners is quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66