Karnataka High Court
Nandisha K vs State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9901 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
NANDISHA K.,
S/O KADIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/AT YELDUR, KOLAR
KARNATAKA - 563 138.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY AVALAHALLY P.S
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
signed by
NAGAVENI BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: High
Court of 2. KARUNAKARAN R.,
Karnataka
S/O SRI RAVICHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO. 134, DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
NEAR MAHESHWARI NAGAR
ANJANEYA TEMPLE, MAHADEVAPURA POST
BENGALURU - 560 048.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNNS)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.8089/2024 PURSUING TO CHARGE SHEET DATED
30.08.2024 ARISING OUT REGISTERED IN CR.NO.200/2024 OF
FIR DATED 14.06.2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
AVALAHALLY P.S., FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S/ 306 OF
IPC R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1960 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner - accused No.2 is at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.8089/2024, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences under Sections 306 r/w. 34 of the IPC, arising out of Crime No.200/2024. The second respondent is the complainant, the father of the victim.
2. Heard Sri Rajath, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 - complainant though served, has chosen to remain unrepresented.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. Unfolding of facts, are as follows:
The son of the second respondent gets married to accused No.1 on 18.02.2024. The son and the daughter in-law shift to a separate residence. The relationship between the two soon began to sore after marriage and the husband generated apprehension of the newly married wife to be having an affair with the petitioner - accused No.2. The allegation in the complaint is that, on the discovery of the affair of the wife with the petitioner, she began to torture the son of the complainant, whom she was married three months ago. Alleging that the son - victim was tormented and tortured by his wife, at 1.20 a.m., i.e., 14.06.2024, commits suicide. He had hung himself to the hook of the fan. The father of the son registers a complaint against accused No1. and others and the complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.200/2024, for the offences under Section 306 r/w. 34 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation, investigation leads to filing of a charge sheet and the matter is now registered as C.C.No.8089/2024 for the afore-quoted offences. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner - accused No.2 to this Court in the subject petition.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. The learned counsel for petitioner Sri Rajath, would vehemently contend that none of the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abatement, for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are present even to its remotest sense against the petitioner - accused No.2. The only allegation against the petitioner is that, the wife of the son having relationship with the petitioner, lead the son of the complainant committing suicide. He would contend that if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of the process of the law, as he is a stranger to the entire episode of crime.
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet would undoubtedly point at the ingredients of the offences of abatement to suicide and therefore, he would contend that it is a matter of trial and all the accused must face the trial and come out clean including the petitioner.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
7. The aforesaid narrate facts, link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. What has driven the petitioner to this Court is filing of the charge sheet, retaining him as accused No.2. The backdrop of the allegation is, accused No.1 gets married to the son of the complainant and the marriage happens on 18.02.2024. It soon transpires that the relationship between the two, floundered, floundering of the relationship has brought up squabble between the two. The squabble is allegedly on account of the petitioner having an affair with the wife of the deceased. On 14.06.2024, at about 1.20 a.m., the son of the complainant hangs himself to the hook of the fan and commits suicide. No death note is left behind. The alleged reason for committing suicide was for the first time drawn in the complaint. Since the entire issue is now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:
-6-NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR "To The Police Inspector Aavalahalli Police Station Bengaluru District From, Karunakaran R S/O Ravichandran Age: 46 years Naidu Caste Cab Driver No.134, Dr. Ambedkar nagar, Near Maheshwari nagar.
Anjaneya Temple, Mahadevapura Post Bengaluru-560048 Dear sir, I am karunakaran staying at the above given address. My son named Prasadh and his wife Uma married on the date 18.02.2024, and both Prasadh and Uma g shifted to rented house near Cheemasandra near by 'Sri Jnanagangotri International School' on 02.05.2024 But from last 20 days my son had problems with his wife as she had an affair with other person named Nandish from Srinivaspura, Seegehalli. When my son Prasadh came to know about her affair she mentally tortured him and with her, her sister named Varsha and the person Nandish has also blackmailed him and tortured him he was very mentally affected by sheer torture and blackmail.
Today at early morning by 1:20 am 14.06.2024 Varsha, Uma's sister called and said that Prasadh as died by hanging in his rented house at cheemasandra and when we went to the spot at 1:45 am 14.06.2024. My son's body was layed down his wife uma, varsha, srinivas (varsha's husband), Shivu (varsha's brother) was present at the spot and we checked my son had died already. As after investigating with house owner, they said, they breaked opened the door and that my son was hanging with a saree tied to the fan hook in the bedroon and in -7- NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR front of owner all the people present at the spot uma, varsha, srinivas and shivu untied him and layed prasadh's body on the floor. We have submitted my son's (prasadh's) body to 'East Point Hospital' Bidarahalli. The cause of my son's death is due to the affair of uma with nandish after the marriage, and the torture and blackmail given to him by uma, varsha, nandish after he got to know about their affair and we registered a case in Aavalahalli Police station to investigate this matter. After Discussing with my family members I registered the complaint.
Your's faithfully R. Karunakaran"
(Emphasis added) The narration in the complaint is that, the son's death is due to the affair of the wife with the petitioner; the torture and blackmail by the wife after the son got to know about the affair; the police conduct investigation and draw a charge sheet against the petitioner and two others. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows:
"17. ೇ ನ ಸಂ ಪ ಾ ಾಂಶ ಘನ ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಾ ೆ ೇ ದ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಪ ವ" #ಾಲೂ%ಕು, 'ದರಹ)*, +ೋಬ), Dವಲಹ)* -.ೕ/ 0ಾ1ಾ ಸರಹದು2, 3ೕಮಸಂದ5 ಾ5ಮದ.% ಾಸ6ದ2 ಮೃತ ಪ5 ಾ9 ರವರು ಈ ;ೋ<ಾ ೋಪ1ಾ ಪ=>ಯ.%ನ ಅಂಕಣ 12 ರ.% ನಮೂA ರುವ ಎ1 ರವ ೊಂA ೆ 6 ಾಹ ಾCದು2, ಇವರ 6 ಾಹದ ನಂತರ ಎ1 ಮತು ಎ2 ರವರು 6 ಾ+ೇತರ ಸಂಬಂದವನುE ಇಟು> ೊಂGದ2 6Hಾರ ಮೃತ ಪ5 ಾ9 ರವ ೆ ೊ#ಾC ಈ ಬ ೆI ಮೃತ ಪ5 ಾ9 ರವರು ಎ1, ಎ2 ಮತು ಎ3 ರವರನುE ೇ);ಾಗ ಎ1, ಎ2 ಮತು ಎ3 ರವರು ಮೃತ ಪ5 ಾ9 ರವ ೆ ಏ ೋ;ೆ2ೕಶAಂದ Kೕನು ಸತ ೆ ಾವL ೆಮMA ಾCರು#ೇ ೆ ಎಂದು ಪ;ೇ -8- NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR ಪ;ೇ +ೇ)ದ2 ಂದ ಮೃತ ಪ5 ಾ9 ರವರು A ಾಂಕ 13/06/2024 ರಂದು ಾN5 11:30 ಗಂOೆPಂದ A ಾಂಕ 14/06/2024 ರಂದು ೆಳCನ Qಾವ ಸುRಾರು 01:00 ಗಂOೆ ೆ ಸಮಯದ.% #ಾನು ಾಸ ಾCದ2 ಮ ೆಯ ರೂಂ ನ.%, ೋS> +ಾT ೊಂಡು ೕ ೆPಂದ Vಾ W ಹುX ೆ ೇಣು +ಾT ೊಂಡು ಮೃತಪ=>ರುವL;ಾC ಮೃತಪ=>ರುವL;ಾC +ಾಗೂ ಮೃತನು ತನE ಾ6 ೆ ಎ1, ಎ2 ಮತು ಎ3 ರವ ೇ ಾರಣ ಎಂದು ಾ 04 ರವ ೆ ಾYZ ಆ\ ] ೇ^ RಾGರುವL;ಾC ತK_ೆPಂದ ದೃಡಪ=>ರು#ೆ.
ದೃಡಪ=>ರು#ೆ ಆದ2 ಂದ ಆ ೋ ಗಳ 6ರುದ` ]ೕಲaಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ೕತ +ೊ ಸಲbಟ> ;ೋ<ಾ ೋಪ1ಾ ಪ=>.
K ೇದ ೆ :
ಪ5ಕರಣದ.% ಮೃತ ಪ5 ಾ9 ಮತು ಎ1 ರವರ c ೈS eೕW ಗಳ ಪ ೕfಾ ವರAಯು ಎg.ಎ/.ಎS 6hಾಗAಂದ ಬರ ೇ ಾCದು2 ಸದ ಎg.ಎ/.ಎS ವರA ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಕಲಂ 173(8) .ಆi. . ಅGಯ.% ಘನ ಾ ಾಲಯ ೆa ಸ.% ೊಳ*jಾಗುವLದು."
(Emphasis added) Whether the allegations in the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet would become the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, is necessary to be noticed and considered. Section 306 of the IPC deals with abatement to suicide, 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."-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR Section 306 of the IPC defines abatement to commission of suicide. What is abatement 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 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR Interpretation of Section 107 of the IPC for it become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.
8. The Apex Court in plethora of cases has interpreted Section 107 of the IPC. I deem it appropriate to notice a few.
The Apex Court in the case of PRABHU V. STATE reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 137, has held as follows:
"18. In order to constitute 'instigation', it must be shown that 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. The words uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the consequence [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Paragraph 20].
19. 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. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, Paragraph 20]
20. There must be direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide [Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, Paragraph 12-14]
21. The accused must have intended or known that the deceased would commit suicide because of his
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR actions or omissions [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628]
22. Applying the above yardstick to the facts of the present case in question, even if we take the case as a whole and test the prosecution case on a demurrer, it could not be said that the actions of the accused instigated Kousalya to take her life or that he conspired with others to ensure that the person committed suicide or any act of the appellant or omission instigated the deceased resulting in the suicide.
23. Broken relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life. It could not be said that the appellant by breaking up the relationship with Kousalya and by advising her to marry in accordance with the advice of her parents, as he himself was doing, had intended to abet the suicide of Kousalya. Hence the offence under Section 306 is not made out.
24. In the teeth of the statement of the deceased which led to the FIR, statement [dated 25.06.2019] and revised statement [dated 04.07.2019] of her mother to whom the deceased narrated the events leading to her consuming the poison, the version of the father and the three paternal uncles of the deceased do not inspire confidence. While the father, in his statement dated 25.06.2019, had given a version identical to the deceased and her mother, in his revised statement, dated 04.07.2019, he states that the deceased purportedly told her mother that the Appellant had told the deceased that he would be happy only if she were to die. This is then repeated by the three paternal uncles in their statements dated 04.07.2019. This version of the father and the paternal uncles is far-fetched since neither the deceased, nor the mother of the deceased to whom the statement was made, or the maternal uncle and aunt, who admitted the deceased at the hospital, have made out such case.
(Emphasis supplied) In the case of DAVID D' SOUZA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE KAR 47, has held as follows:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR "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 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 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
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 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. 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.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR
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 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., (2002) 5 SCC 371 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
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 MAHAJAN, (2010) 12 SCC 190 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
25. 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. 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 BENGAL, (2010) 1 SCC 707 the Apex Court holds as follows:
".... .... ....
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR
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 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
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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) A decade later, the Apex Court in the case of GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB, (2020) 10 SCC 200 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
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR examined whether the appellant had 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 PRADESH, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737 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 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
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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.
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
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 GUJARAT, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
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
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 KARNATAKA, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 216 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 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
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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:
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.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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.
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 Chhattisgarh2, 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
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR sheet. The Apex Court in the case of MAHMOOD ALI v. STATE OF U.P, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 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 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
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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 LAL, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 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.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR Again, in the case of ROHINI SUDARSHAN GANGURDE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Apex Court has held as follows:
"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.
9. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 this court explained the concept of abetment along with necessary ingredient for offence under Section 306 of IPC as under:
"25. 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. 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."
10. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 this court explained the parameters of Section 306 in following words:
"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
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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."
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 while explaining the meaning of 'Instigation', this court stated that:
"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. 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 to 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."
12. These principles and necessary ingredients of Section 306 and 107 of Penal Code, 1860 were
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR reiterated and summarized by this court in recent case of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC
200.
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 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.
14. Thus, none of the three essentials of Section 107 read with Section 306 IPC are existing.
(Emphasis supplied) In the case of MAHENDRA AWASE V. STATE OF M.P. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 801, the Apex Court has held as follows:
"25. 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. 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
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR 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.
27. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant. The order of framing a charge under Section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of framing charge under Section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside."
(Emphasis supplied) In terms of the law elucidated by the Apex Court, what would unmistakably emerge is that, for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, instigation, goading, proximity and the victim should be left with no choice, but to commit suicide, while it may be an explanation that the wife should render as she was the last person whom the husband was with. The allegation against the petitioner is, alleged affair with the wife.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21411 CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024 HC-KAR Therefore, the petitioner cannot be alleged for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC - abatement of suicide by the son of the complainant. In that light, only against the petitioner, the alleged paramour, if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and results in patent injustice.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed.
b. The proceedings in C.C.No.8089/2024, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, stand quashed, qua the petitioner.
c. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order for the purpose of the consideration of the case of the petitioner, the same shall not bind or influence the trial Court against any other accused.
I.A.No.1/2024 stands disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24CT:SS