Karnataka High Court
Sri.Parameshwarappa S/O Late ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101865 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA
S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST.: BALLARI.
2. SRI VEERESHA
S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST.: BALLARI.
3. SRI SATHISHA
S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS
R/O: HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TAL.: KUDLIGI, DIST.: BALLARI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION
BALLARI, NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
2. SMT.SOWMYA
W/O VEERESH
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEWIFE
R/O HOSAHALLI, TAL. : KUDLIGI
DIST.: BALLARI. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1,
R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.996/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC COURT, KUDLIGI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
504 & 306 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, ORDER SHEET MARKED AT
ANNEXURE - A.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners in this petition call in question the proceedings
in C.C.No.996 of 2019 pending before the Civil Judge & JMFC,
Kudligi registered for offences punishable under Sections 504
and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Sri.Srinand.A.Pachchapure, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners and Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as
borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
On 14-03-2015 the husband of the complainant claims to
have called her at 6.00 p.m. and asked her to stay in the shop
on the score that he was going out to get money from the Bank.
Thereafter, it appears, the husband/deceased called the
complainant over mobile and informed her that he would be
coming late. Again when the complainant called her husband as
to when he would be returning, he appears to have told again
that he would coming late and asked the complainant to sleep.
The husband of the complainant never returned and when the
complainant woke up in the morning next day and tried to
contact her husband the mobile phone was switched off. On
18-03-2015, about 4 days later, the complainant claims to have
got the information about the death of her husband in the land
belonging to Doddaningapar Tippeswamy. On such information,
along with her brothers and relatives she rushed to the spot and
found the body of the husband of the complainant lying thereby.
It is also contended that a chit was found therein and the chit,
according to the complainant, was the suicide note of her
husband, in which, the names of the petitioners figured as being
the reason for the death of the husband of the complainant.
4. On the said incident, a complaint came to be registered
for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 504 read with
Section 34 of the IPC in Crime No.41 of 2015. The Police, after
about four years of investigation, filed a charge sheet on
28.04.2019. It is at that juncture, the petitioners have knocked
the doors of this Court in the subject petition. This Court
entertaining the petition granted an interim order of stay of all
further proceedings. Therefore, further proceedings pursuant to
the charge sheet have not taken place pursuant to filing of the
charge sheet.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
vehemently argue and contend that there is no evidence
demonstrable in law that suicide of the husband of the
complainant was due to instigation by any of the petitioners.
The so called death note contains only one line stating "reason
for my death is Parameshwarappa and his two children". Except
that nothing is indicated in the death note. The signature found
on the death note is also held to be not that of the deceased. The
chit that was found was also handed over by the complainant to
the police. The learned counsel would further submit that the
petitioners and the complainant's family run provision stores
opposite to each other and the complainant's family had suffered
business losses due to competition generated by the petitioners.
He would seek quashment of the entire proceedings.
6. The complainant/respondent No.2 though served
remains absent and unrepresented.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for the State would however seek to justify the action of the
Police in filing the charge sheet and contends that it is a matter
of trial in which the petitioners have to come out clean.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts being not in dispute are not
reiterated. The body was found at a particular place and the
alleged chit is claimed to have been found at the said place. The
chit was subjected to forensic investigation. The report of the
investigation is that the signature found in the chit was not that
of the deceased. It is inconclusive is what the report reads.
Opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory on the death note
reads as follows:
"Duration of Examination: 29-10-2015 to 17-01-2019.
OPINION
1. The questioned writings marked as QDI & the
admitted writings marked as E1 are written by one
and the same person.
2. On the basis of available limited admitted signatures
marked as E3, E4, opinion on questioned signature
marked as QD1(A) could not be expressed."
There is no other incident found in the alleged death note except
"£À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ ¥ÀgÀªÉÄñÀ¥Àà & E§âgÄÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÄÀ PÁgÀt". The rivalry between the
petitioners and the family of the complainant is also not in
dispute. The allegation made in the complaint against the
petitioners is that the petitioners have on one or two occasions
picked up quarrel with the complainant's family and have told
the husband of the complainant to go and die. It is this that is
narrated in the complaint that amounts to abetment to suicide
committed by the husband of the complainant.
10. The Police, after investigation, have also filed a charge
sheet, summary of which reads as follows:
"17. Brief facts of the case
ºÉƸÀº½ À î ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸Àgº À ¢À Ý£° À è §gÀĪÀ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ
¥ÀvzÀæ À PÁ®A:12gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÉƸÀº½ À î UÁæªÀÄzÀ
ªÀÄÈvÀ «ÃgÉñÀ¤UÉ HgÀÄ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃV PÀ¥ÀÄà vÉƼÉzÀÄ §AzÀª£ À ÀÄ PÀÄgÀÄqÀÄ
¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄUÀ£À PÀ¸À ºÁPÀĪÁUÀ ZÀgAÀ rAiÀÄ°è ©Ã¼ÀĪÀ PÀÄgÀÄqÀ JAzÀÄ
zÀĨÁðµÉU½ À AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÈvÀ «ÃgÉñÀ£ÀÄ HlPÉÌ §gÀĪÀ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è vÀ£ÀߣÀÄß ¸Á® PÉüÀĪÀªg À ÀÄ §gÀÄvÁÛgAÉ zÀÄ CAUÀr ¨ÁV®Ä
ºÁQPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛ£AÉ zÀÄ «ÃgÉñÀ¤UÉ UÉð ªÀiÁr vÀ£U À É QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ,
¢£ÁAPÀ:14-03-2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ
ªÀÄÈvÀ «ÃgÉñÀ£ÀÄ CAUÀrAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ §AzÀÄ K PÀÄgÀÄqÀÄ ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄUÀ£É
ºÉÆÃmÉïï£À°è ¯ÉÆÃl vÉƼÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ fêÀ£À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀݪ£ À ÀÄ E°è
EµÉÆÖAzÀÄ GjAiÀÄÄwÛà CAvÁ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ¨ÉÊzÁr CªÀªÀiÁ£À
ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ «ÃgÉñÀ£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ FUÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¨Áj £À£U À É EzÉà jÃw ¨ÉÊzÀÄ
CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃj £Á£ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä QgÀÄPÀļÀ vÁ¼À¯ÁgÀzÃÉ £Á£ÀÄ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ
PÀÄrzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÄÛ©qÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ «ÃgÉñÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀvÀÛgÃÉ
¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÀvÉÛ £ÀªÀÄUÉãÀÄ DUÀÄvÉÛà ¸Á¬Ä ºÉÆÃUÀ¯ÃÉ CAvÁ ¥ÀZ æ ÉÆÃzÀ£AÉ iÀÄ
ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß DrgÀÄvÁÛgAÉ zÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:14-03-2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ®
6-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ªÀÄÈvÀ «ÃgÉñÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è vÀ£Àß ºÉAqÀw
¸ÁQë -1 gÀªg À £
À ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¨ÁåAQ£À°è ºÀt vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉý
ºÉÆÃzÀª£ À ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¨ÁgÀzÃÉ "£À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ ¥Àgª À ÉÄñÀégÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E§âgÀÄ
ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ PÁgÀt CAvÁ §gÉzÀÄ EAw «ÃgÉñÀ" CAvÁ qÉvÀ £ÉÆÃl£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄ
¢£ÁAPÀ:14-03-2015 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 11-50 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:17-03-2015
gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 5-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀåzÀ CªÀ¢Aü iÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 6
wAUÀ½¤AzÀ «ÃgÉñÀ¤UÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀvÀÛgÉ
¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÀvÉÛ £ÀªÀÄUÉãÀÄ DUÀÄvÉÛà ¨Á ¥ÀZ æ ÉÆÃzÀ£AÉ iÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß DrzÀÝjAzÀ
ªÀÄÈvÀ «ÃgÉñÀ£ÀÄ fêÀ£z À °
À è ¨ÉøÀgU
À ÉÆAqÀÄ Qæ«Ä£Á±ÀPÀ OµÀ¢Aü iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸Éë¹
ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛ£AÉ zÀÄ ¸ÁQë-22 gÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ£À ¨sÁAVUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¹
"COLOR TEST AND THIN-LAYER
CHROMATOGRAPHIC METHODS OF ANALYSIS HAVE
RESPONDED FOR THE PRESENCE OF ETHYL
ALCOHOL AND MONOCROTOPHOS
(ORGANOPHOSPORUS INSECTICIDE) IN ARTICLE
NO.3, 4 AND 6 AND MONOCROTOPHOS
(ORGANOPHOSPHORUS INSECTICIDE) IN ARTICLE
NO.1 & 2" CAvÁ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀg¢
À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgAÉ zÀÄ ¸ÁQë - 26
g˻g
À ÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ «ÃgÉñÀ£À §gÀºU À ¼
À ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÈvÀ£À §½ zÉÆgÉvÀ qÉvï
£ÉÆÃl£À §gÀºU À ¼
À À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¹ 1. "The questioned writtings
marked as QD1 & the admitted writtings marked as
E1 are written by one and the same person". 2. on
the basis of available limited admitted signatures
marked as E3, E4 opinion oa questioned signature
marked as Qd1(A) could not be expressed" CAvÁ
C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀg¢À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgAÉ zÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ PÁ®zÀ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀ
ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀU¼ À ÀÄ ¸ÁPÀëöåzsÁgÀU½
À AzÀ ¸Á©ÃvÁVzÀÝjAzÀ CgÉÆævÀgÀ
«gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A:504, 306 CzsÁgÀ 34 L¦¹ jvÀå zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥Àvª Àæ £
À ÀÄß
vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¤ªÉâ¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
Even the result of the investigation as found in the summary
(supra) is indicative of the fact that the petitioners have criticized
the husband of the complainant and the deceased died due to
insult that the petitioners have meted out against the deceased.
This can hardly be said to be a circumstance which would drive
commission of suicide and its abetment as required in law.
11. The issue whether such instance would amount to
abetment to suicide need not detain this Court for long or delve
deep into the matter, as the issue stands covered by the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN
SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER1
wherein it is held as follows:
"9. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we
have perused the impugned order and other material
placed on record. Except the self-serving statements of the
complainant and other witnesses stating that deceased
was in love with the appellant, there is no other material to
show that appellant was maintaining any relation with the
deceased. From the material placed on record it is clear
that on the date of incident on 04.05.2018 deceased went
to the house of the appellant and consumed poison by
2021 SCC Online SC 737
taking out from a small bottle which he has 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. '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 306, IPC. To proceed against any person for
the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must
have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide. There is nothing on
record to show that appellant was maintaining relation
with the deceased and further there is absolutely no
material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the
deceased within the meaning of Section 306, IPC. 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
deceased by uttering casteist words but there is nothing on
record to show to attract any of the ingredients for the
alleged offence also. This Court in the case of Chitresh
Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)1 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 straightjacket formula dealing
with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided
on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. In the
case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal2 in
order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306, IPC
this Court has held as under:
"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."
10. In the judgment in the case of S.S.
Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan3 this Court reiterated the
ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC. Paragraph 25 of
the judgment reads 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."
11. In the judgment in the case of Rajiv
Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapur4 this Court has considered the
scope of the provision under Section 482, Cr.PC and has
laid down the steps which should be followed by the High
Court to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing of
proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.PC.
Paragraph 30 containing the four steps read as under:
"30. Based on the factors canvassed in the
foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the
following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer
for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the
power vested in the High Court under Section 482
CrPC:
30.1. Step one: whether the material relied
upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and
indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and
impeccable quality?
30.2. Step two: whether the material relied
upon by the accused would rule out the assertions
contained in the charges levelled against the
accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and
overrule the factual assertions contained in the
complaint i.e. the material is such as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as
false?
30.3. Step three: whether the material relied
upon by the accused has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is
such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the
trial would result in an abuse of process of the court,
and would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the
affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court
should persuade it to quash such criminal
proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides
doing justice to the accused, would save precious
court time, which would otherwise be wasted in
holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising
therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same
would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."
12. By applying the aforesaid ratio decided by
this Court, we have carefully scrutinized the
material on record and examined the facts of the
case on hand. Except the statement that the
deceased was in relation with the appellant, there is
no material at all to show that appellant was
maintaining any relation with the deceased. In fact,
at earlier point of time when the deceased was
stalking the appellant, the appellant along with her
father went to the police station complained about
the calls which were being made by the deceased to
the appellant. Same is evident from the statement of
S.I. Manoj Kumar recorded on 05.07.2018. In his
statement recorded he has clearly deposed that the
father along with the appellant went to the police
post and complained against the deceased who was
continuously calling the appellant and proposing
that she should marry him with a threat that he will
die otherwise. Having regard to such material placed
on record and in absence of any material within the
meaning of Section 107 of IPC, there is absolutely no
basis to proceed against the appellant for the
alleged offence under Section 306 IPC and Section
3(2)(v) of the Act. It would be travesty of justice to
compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without
any credible material whatsoever.
13. In view of the same, we are of the view that the
High Court has committed error in rejecting the application
filed by the appellant by merely recording a finding that in
view of the factual disputes same cannot be decided in a
petition under Section 482, Cr.PC."
(Emphasis supplied)
This Court following the earlier judgments rendered by the Apex
Court earlier to that of KANCHAN SHARMA (supra) has held in
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6390 OF 2017 decided on
14-09-2021 as follows:
"9. Since the entire issue springs from the death of
the husband of the complainant who died by committing
suicide and the allegation against the petitioner being for
the offences punishable under abetment to suicide, it is
germane to consider Section 306 of the IPC which 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."
Abetment as found in Section 306 of IPC is what is
described 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."
Therefore, in terms of Section 306 of IPC whoever
abets a particular thing as defined under Section 107 of
IPC would become punishable under Section 306 of the
IPC. Section 107 of IPC mandates that a person abets
doing of a thing and instigates any person to do so,
engages with one or more other person in any conspiracy
for doing such a thing, intentionally aids by any act or
illegal omission of doing of that thing. Therefore, for an
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC for abetment
to suicide, the ingredients under Section 107 of IPC are to
be present in a given case.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner places
reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this
Court in the case of M.C.CHAITHRA AND OTHERS VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2008 KAR
2710. This judgment is of the year 2008. The clock of the
flow of law did not freeze in the year 2008, as much water
has flown thereafter in interpretation of Sections 306 and
107 of the IPC by plethora of judgments of the Apex Court.
I therefore, deem it appropriate to, at the outset, notice
such flow of law and then consider the facts obtaining in
the case at hand on the touch stone of such interpretation
by the Apex Court. The Apex Court interpreting Section
306 of IPC, has in several judgments, held the existence of
mens rea or instigation is necessary to make out an offence
punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The Apex Court
in the case of GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF
PUNJAB2has held as follows:-
"20. Section 306 of the Code prescribes the
punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed thus:
"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."
21. It is thus manifest that the offence
punishable is one of abetment of the commission of
suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live
link or nexus between the two, abetment being the
propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of
this provision are suicidal death and the abetment
thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and
involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the
commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or
absence of any of these constituents would militate against
this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or
omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to
actualise the suicide would fall short as well of the offence
of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of
Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and
complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the
concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus
criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of afore-extracted judgment of the Apex Court,
to attribute act of abetment to suicide against an accused
there has to be some link and proximity of the accused
with the deceased who committed suicide.
(2017) 1 SCC 433
11. The Apex Court in the case of RAMESH KUMAR
v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH3 considers what is
abetment and delineates as follows:-
"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.
21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC
73: 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that the
court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts
and circumstances of each case and 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 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
(2001) 9 SCC 618
12. The Apex Court in the case of AMALENDU PAL
V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL4, has held as follows::
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the
view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also
assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the
victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to
put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that
in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be
proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of
harassment without there being any positive action
proximate to the time of 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
(2010) 1 SCC 707
be punished with the punishment provided for the original
offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State,
however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case
where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be
attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide
is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
Again, the Apex Court in the case of S.S. CHHEENA
V. VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN5, has held as follows:
"24. 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 words "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 other. 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.
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
(2010) 12 SCC 190
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 scrutinise 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)
The Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of
GURUCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB6 while
considering the entire spectrum of law 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."
(2020) 10 SCC 200
14. The definition quoted above makes it clear that
whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any
act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be
said to have abetted in doing that thing.
15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be
established. To prove the offence of abetment, as
specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to
commit a particular crime must be visible, to
determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea,
there has to be something on record to establish or
show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind
and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the
suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea
cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has
to be visible and conspicuous. However, what
transpires in the present matter is that both the trial court
as well as the High Court never examined whether the
appellant had 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.
18. In Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana [Mangat
Ram v. State of Haryana, (2014) 12 SCC 595: (2014) 5
SCC (Cri) 127] , which again was a case of wife's
unnatural death, speaking for the Division Bench, K.S.P.
Radhakrishnan, J. rightly observed as under : (SCC p. 606,
para 24)
"24. We find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning
of the High Court [Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana,
Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997, decided on 27-5-2008
(P&H)] that "no prudent man is to commit suicide unless
abetted to do so". A woman may attempt to commit suicide
due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial
difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic
worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not
be due to abetment. The reasoning of the High Court that
no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so
by someone else, is a perverse reasoning."
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, the case at hand will have to be
considered on the bedrock of the IPC and judgments of the
Apex Court (supra).
13. Since the entire issue springs from the complaint
registered against the petitioner and others, it is germane
to notice the complaint, which reads as follows:
"«µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå£ÀªgÀ ÀÄ «µÀ PÀÄrzÀÄ
DvÀäºvÀ Éå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ.
vÀÄgÀĪÉÃPÉgÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, zÀAr£À²ªÀgÀ ºÉÆç½, UÉÆgÀªÀ£¥ À Á¼Àå UÁæªÀÄzÀ
ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ D¢PÀ£ÁðlPÀ (¥À.eÁ) d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ®PÀëöäªÀÄä PÉÆÃA
ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ £Á£ÀÄ §gɹPÉÆlÖ Cfð K£ÉAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.10.2012£ÉÃ
UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀzAÀ zÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 6.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ
gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï PÁ¦üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀAzÉUÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä £ÀªÀÄä vÉÆÃlPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ¥Àe æ ÁջãÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è PɼU À É ©¢ÝzÀÄÝ
¨ÁAiÀÄ°è £ÉÆgÉ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖÃ. EzÀ£ÀÄß PÀAqÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ PÀÆUÁqÀÄvÁÛ
¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï¤AzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁV ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ £ÁªÉ®è ºÉÆÃV
EªÀg£ À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CA§Ä¯É£ïì ªÀÄÄASÁvÀgÀ UÀÄ©â ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvU Éæ É ºÉÆÃV
C°è ¥Àx æ ªÀ ÀÄ aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹ ªÉÊzÀågÀ ¸À®ºÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðj f¯Áè
D¸ÀàvU Éæ É ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸À¯ÁAiÀÄÄÛ, C°è aQvÉì ¥s° À ¸ÀzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.10.2012£Éà ±ÀÄPÀª æ ÁgÀ
ªÀÄzsÀågÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 12.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è L.¹.AiÀÄÄ ªÁqïð£À°è ªÀÄgÀt
ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛg.É EªÀgÀ ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtªÉãÉAzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹
°AUÁ¬ÄvÀ d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ («ÃgÀ±ÉʪÀ) ºÉZï.J¸ï.¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå ©£ï ¹zÀÞ°AUÀAiÀÄå
ªÀQîgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ ¥Àwß n.J¸ï.ªÀÄAUÀ¼À PÉÆÃA ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀ
CtÚ ºÉZï.J¸ï.°AUÀgÁeï ©£ï ¹zÀÞ°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀgÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ©.¹.PÁªÀ¯ï ¸Àªð É
£ÀA.1/49 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1/50gÀ 8 JPÀgÉ d«ÄäzÀÄÝ F d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå ©£ï
°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ PÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 9 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ®Æ
C£ÀĨsª À zÀ °À èzÀÄÝ, F d«Ää£À §UÉÎ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üU¼ À ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É DVAzÁUÉå ¥ÉÆðøï PÀA¥ÉèÃAmï PÉÆlÄÖ C£ÁªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁV £ÀªÀÄä
ªÉÄÃ¯É d«ÄãÀÄ MqÉAiÀÄĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀĨÉÃPÀÄ.
C°èAiÀĪÀgUÉ ÀÆ F d«ÄãÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ zÀPÀÄ̪ÀÅ¢®è. ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀĨÉÃPÉA¢ÀzÀÝgÃÉ F
d«Ää£À ºÀwÛgÀ ¨Á JAzÀÄ ºÉZï.J¸ï.¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå £À£Àß UÀAqÀ££ À ÀÄß £À£Àß JzÀÄjUÉ
©.¹.PÁªÀ¯ï d«Ää£À ºÀwÛgÀ £ÁªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä d«ÄäUÉ ªÀÄļÀÄî vÀAw PÀA§ £ÉqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ
¨ÉÊzÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CzÉà ¢£À £À£U À É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄUÉ
eÁw ¤AzÀ£AÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝU½ À AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ PÉÆ¯É ¨Ézj À PÉ ºÁQ £ÀªÀÄUÉ
ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆlÄÖ £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ°è £ÉªÀÄ䢬ÄAzÀ ¨Á¼À®Ä
©qÀÄwÛg° À ®è ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.10.2012gÀAzÀÄ zÀAqÀ£²À ªÀgÀ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è
¥ÀÄ£À: EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉZï.J¸ï.¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå Qæ«Ä£À¯ï PÉøï zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ £À£Àß ¥ÀwUÉ
UÉÆvÁÛV ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ F CªÀªÀiÁ£Àª£ À ÀÄß ¸À»¸À¯ÁgÀzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.10.2012£ÉÃ
UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ ªÀiÁgÀÄvÀªÀÄ䣺 À ½
À îAiÀÄ ªÁ¹ ªÀĺÉñï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ
ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀjUÉ CAzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÀ§âPÉÌ HlPÉÌ PÀgAÉ iÀÄ®Ä £ÀªÀÄä
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwgÛ À §AzÁUÀ ªÀĺÉñïgÀªjÀ UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ C¼ÀÄvÁÛ £Á£ÀÄ ¸Á® ªÀiÁr
©.¹.PÁªÀ¯ï£À°è D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆAqÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ. F ¢£À £À£UÀ É £À£Àß D¹Û ¹UÀÄwÛ®è
ªÀQîgÁzÀ ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå F ¢£À ¥ÀÄ£À: £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÉÆðøï PÀA¥ÉAè mï PÉÆnÖzÁÝ£.É
£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀªgÀ UÉ ÀÆ F D¹Û ¤£ÀUÉ zÀPÀÄ̪ÀÅ¢®èªAÉ zÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝ£.É DzÀÝjAzÀ F ¢£À
£Á£ÀÄ «µÀPÀÄrzÀÄ DvÀäºv À Éå ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. DªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÉÆðøïgÀjUÉ
zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ£AÉ iÉÆà ¤ÃqÀ° JAzÀÄ zÀÄT:¸ÀÄvÁÛ ªÀĺÉñïgÀªjÀ UÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄÄAzÉ
ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. CzÀPÉÌ ªÀĺÉñïgÀªgÀ ÀÄ EµÀÖPÉ̯Áè ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÉzjÀ DvÀäºv À Éå ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃqÀ
JAzÀÄ §Ä¢Ý ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. zsÉÊAiÀÄð vÀÄA©zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ HjUÉ
ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. CzÉà ¢£À £À£Àß ¥Àw ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ CªÀªÀiÁ£À vÁ¼À¯ÁgÀzÉ £À£UÀ É vÀ©âPÉÆAqÀÄ
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ zÀÄT:¸ÀÄvÁÛ UÉÆüÁrzÀgÀÄ CzÀjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ «µÀPÀÄr¢zÁÝ£AÉ iÉÆà CxÀªÁ ªÀQîgÁzÀ ºÉZï.J¸ï.¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå ©£ï
¹zÀÝ°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄð£À zÉéõÀPÁÌV £ÀªÀÄä vÉÆÃlzÀ ºÀwgÛ À ºÉÆÃV £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ¤UÉ «µÀ PÀÄr¹zÁÝgAÉ iÉÆà JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀıÀªÁV vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr £À£UÀ É
ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ £ÁåAiÀÄ zÉÆgÀQ¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV vÀªÀÄä°è ¥Áæyð¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
(Emphasis added)
In terms of the complaint what can be gathered is,
the petitioner and the deceased were holding lands
abutting to each other. The allegation in the complaint is
that the petitioner and his family members have harassed
the deceased by filing several cases against him
concerning the dispute with regard to the land. The
allegation in the complaint is that when the complainant
and her husband went to the house of one Mahesh, it is
there the deceased confided into Mahesh that he had
raised loan and had purchased the property in B.C.Kaval
and today he is not getting the said property as the
petitioner has filed a complaint against him. It is his
assumption that till he dies the property would not come in
his possession. Because of that reason, the deceased
consumed poison. This is what is narrated by the
complainant in the complaint. The complaint further
narrates that Mahesh consoled the deceased by telling him
that this trivial issue should not be a ground for him to
commit suicide and on that day itself the complainant
alleges that her husband unable to bear the insult,
committed suicide. The entire complaint does not narrate
any abetment by the petitioner being present at that point
in time or leaving the deceased with no other option, but to
commit suicide on account of a guilty mind on the part of
the petitioner.
14. With regard to filing of cases against the
deceased by the petitioner and his family members, an
endorsement is appended to the petition papers with
regard to the information furnished by the jurisdictional
police that up to 11.10.2012 there were no criminal cases
that are filed against the deceased by the petitioner or any
other family members of the petitioner. The issuance of this
endorsement and its veracity is not in dispute. The case
that the family of the petitioner had filed against the
deceased was O.S.No.131 of 2000 which was a suit filed
for declaration and injunction against the deceased. The
suit was decreed on 18-06-2008. This is the only litigation
between the parties apart from a criminal complaint that
was registered on 10-10-2012, a day before the deceased
committed suicide. With regard to the original suit that was
filed in the year 2000 and the civil court decreeing the said
suit on 18-06-2008, the civil litigation has become final.
15. The complaint that was registered against the
petitioner was with regard to constant harassment of the
petitioner to the deceased. The complaint was registered on
10-10-2012 and therefore, it cannot even casually link the
abetment to suicide to the registration of the complaint or
the ingredients of such abetment. Mere filing of a case or
registration of a complaint or even harassment cannot
mean that the petitioner had indulged in abetment to
suicide of the deceased.
16. As delineated by the Apex Court in the
judgments extracted (supra), abetment under Section 107
of IPC has few ingredients to be proved. If Section 306 of
IPC, has to be proved, if the judgment of the Apex court
and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, as stated
above are considered, it would unmistakably reveal that
there cannot be any link to the death of the deceased with
the petitioner, as the state of mind to commit a particular
crime is a sine qua non to establish an offence under
Section 107 IPC and to prove mens rea, there has to be
something on record, to establish or show that the
petitioner had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that
state of mind, abetted suicide to the deceased. Neither the
narration in the complaint nor the material in the charge
sheet link the offence under Section 306 IPC with the
petitioner. The postmortem report indicates that the
deceased died of consumption of excessive alcohol coupled
with poison. Neither consumption of excessive alcohol or
consumption of poison can link to the cases filed against
the deceased by the petitioner. As stated hereinabove,
mere harassment by way of filing of cases cannot even
remotely link the petitioner for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the IPC. Except the self-serving
statement in the complaint, by the complainant, there is
nothing on record to show that the petitioner even remotely
instigated abetment of the deceased to commit suicide. In
my considered view, there is absolutely no basis to
proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offence of
Section 306 of the IPC and the provisions of the Atrocities
Act. It would be travesty of justice to compel the petitioner
to undergo trial particularly when there is no material
against him."
In the light of the judgment rendered by this Court and the later
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA,
the result of the investigation or the complaint cannot be an
enough circumstance for driving home the allegation of
abetment to suicide. If the trial is permitted to continue against
the petitioners on the afore-narrated facts it would fall foul of the
postulates laid down in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA (supra)
and that of BHAJANLAL reported in 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No. 996/2019 pending
before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Kudligi stand
quashed qua the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
