S. 306 IPC | A Word Uttered In A Fit Of Anger Without Intending Consequences Can't Be Said To Be Instigation For Suicide: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that to convict the accused for committing an offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused, by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct, created a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide.

"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.", the Bench Comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

The Supreme Court, while reversing the conviction to acquittal, observed that 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.”, the Judgment penned by Bhuyan J. stated.

The appellant/accused was convicted by the Trial Court for abetting the suicide of a woman, and the same was upheld by the High Court.

It was alleged by the prosecution that the appellant/accused used to harass and tease the deceased lady to marry him. When the deceased refused to respond, the 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, and consequently died in the hospital.

The prosecution alleged that the Appellant/accused's teasing and harassment of the deceased to marry him instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

Thus, the question that appeared before the Supreme Court was whether the Appellant/accused could be held guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased woman.

Supreme Court Obervation

Answering negatively, the Supreme Court after perusing material evidence placed on record found that the appellant/accused cannot be held guilty of abetting the deceased suicide because neither there was a mens rea on part of the accused to abet the suicide nor the act of the accused the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

“the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative to put an end to her life. It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.”, the Supreme Court observed while referring to Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State of West Bengal.

“the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty”, observed the Supreme Court while endorsing State of West Bengal versus Orilal Jaiswal.

“Human mind is an enigma. 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.”, the Top court said.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court does not find any evidence based on which we can hold the appellant guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased.

“While the death of a young woman is certainly very tragic, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that suicide has been proved; the other essential ingredient constituting the offence under Section 306 IPC, viz, abetment cannot also be said to have been proved.”

“The settled legal position, the evidence on record and the glaring omissions of the prosecution as pointed out above, leaves no room for doubt. We are therefore of the unhesitant view that the conviction of the appellant is wholly unsustainable.”, the court concluded

That being the position, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC is set aside. The judgment and order of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court are hereby set aside and quashed.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, A.A.G. Mr. Omar Hada, Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Uday Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Kamran Khan, Adv. Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR

Case Details: KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1427 OF 2011

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment