Mere Allegations Of Harassment For Demand Of Loan Repayment Not Abetment Of Suicide U/S 306 IPC Without Mens Rea: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that insisting the deceased to repay the loan borrowed by him does not amount to abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar added that mere harassment or demands for loan repayment, without the intention to drive the person to suicide, do not constitute abetment.“There is no evidence to show that the appellant/accused...
The Karnataka High Court has held that insisting the deceased to repay the loan borrowed by him does not amount to abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar added that mere harassment or demands for loan repayment, without the intention to drive the person to suicide, do not constitute abetment.
“There is no evidence to show that the appellant/accused had intention to drive out the deceased Raju to commit suicide. Looking from any angle, the act of the appellant/accused harassing the deceased for repayment of money borrowed and threatening him to take his life does not amount to abetment.”
The case revolves around the suicide of the deceased, Raju, who was married to Kavita, and they had one child together. The deceased had borrowed money from the appellant and was allegedly being harassed by her for repayment.
On 25.04.2019, the appellant and her daughter visited the deceased's house, and on that day, Raju committed suicide by hanging himself with a saree. The appellant informed the deceased's brother about the suicide, and the deceased was taken to the hospital, where he eventually passed away on 10.05.2019.
The appellant was subsequently convicted under Section 306 of IPC. Aggrieved by this, the appellant moved the High Court.
The appellant argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish the elements of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. They claimed that there were contradictions in the evidence regarding the amount borrowed by the deceased and that merely demanding repayment of a loan does not amount to abetment to commit suicide.
The appellant also argued that there was no mens rea or intention on their part to drive the deceased to commit suicide. They asserted that the appellant had only asked for the repayment of the borrowed money, and the deceased's suicide may have been a result of his lorry business being in financial trouble.
The Government Pleader, on the other hand, supported the trial court's judgment, arguing that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to convict the appellant. They contended that the appellant's continuous demands for repayment of the loan led to the deceased's suicide.
The main question before the court was whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC.
Findings:
The bench on going through the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses noted that what can be gathered is that the deceased Raju had borrowed money from the appellant/accused and the appellant/accused demanded the repayment of the money and used to harass him.
Further, the court observed that to establish abetment under Section 306, there must be instigation with a mens rea to provoke, incite, or encourage the act of suicide.
“The appellant/accused insisted the deceased Raju to repay the money borrowed by him. There was no intention on the part of the appellant/accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The appellant/accused was interested in getting back the money lent to the deceased. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such an action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.”
Referring to the evidence of PW-1 who is the brother of the deceased Raju who has in his cross-examination stated that the deceased had purchased the lorry by taking a loan and he has sustained a loss in his lorry business.
The court said,
“The very said admission given by PW-1 itself shows that the deceased has borrowed money for purchase of lorry and he has sustained loss in the said lorry business. That may be one or the reason for the deceased to commit suicide.”
Following this it held,
“The appellant/accused has lent money to the deceased Raju. She was interested in getting back the said money. She had no intention of taking the life of the deceased Raju. Therefore, there is no clear mens rea on the part of the appellant/accused to abet the deceased to commit suicide.”
The court cited several legal precedents to emphasize that the intention to provoke suicide must be present for an abetment charge to be valid. It also highlighted that each case of suicide is unique and depends on various factors, and that a person's reaction to a situation can vary significantly.
"The circumstances established by the prosecution do not lead to only possible inference regarding the guilt of the appellant/accused. Therefore, the Trial Court was not right in placing burden on the appellant/accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as the prosecution has not established its burden as required under Section 101 of the Evidence Act.”
It concluded that the act of the appellant did not amount to abetment under Section 306 of the IPC, and therefore, the appellant should be acquitted.
Accordingly, it allowed the appeal, set aside the appellant's conviction, and ordered the refund of any fine paid by the appellant.
Appearance: Advocate Siddharth B Muchandi for Appellant.
HCGP Rangaswamy R for Respondent.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
Case Title: Mangala Gowri And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2023