Karnataka High Court
Dyamanna S/O Yamanappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101719 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. DYAMANNA
S/O YAMANAPPA TALAGALAMANI
AGE: 59 YEARS
OCC.: AGRICULTURE.
2. RAYAPPA
S/O MUKANNA TALAGALAMANI
AGE. 53 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE.
3. BASAVARAJ
S/O YAMANAPPA
TALAGALAMANI @ KELAGINAMANI
AGE 51 YEARS,
OCC.: GOVT. LECTURER,
ALL ARE R/O. VALAKALADINNI,
TQ. HUNAGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOTE - 587 115.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HUNAGUNDA
2
POLICE STATION - 587 118,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHAWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD.
2. BASAPPA
S/O SHEKHAPPA METI
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC.: NIL,
R/O. VALKALDINNI,
TQ.: HUNAGUND,
DIST.: BAGALKOTE - 587 115.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI ANAND R KOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 306, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC IN HUNAGUNDA POLICE
STATION CRIME NO.193/2019 AND ORDER DATED 19.05.2020
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT,
HUNAGUND IN CC NO.363/2021 (OLD CC NO.260/2020) FOR
TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ABOVE OFFENCES, REGISTRATION
OF CRIMINAL CASE AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO THE
PETITIONERS.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners call in question proceedings in C.C.No.363
of 2021 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hunagund registered for offences punishable under Sections
306 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for petitioners and
Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Anand.R.Kolli, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as
borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
On 8-01-2012 the son of the complainant had travelled to
Yallammana Gudda Temple in a tractor. While returning, the
said tractor meets with an accident and four persons died. In
the accident, the son of the complainant sustained severe
injuries. The complainant claims to have incurred expenses of
Rs.7,00,000/- and apart from the claim of insurance, the
complainant had also demanded some amount from the owner
of the tractor who threatened him of dire consequences. All this
has happened in the year 2012.
4. On 23-08-2017 the complainant and his wife had gone
to Ilkal for treatment of their grandson and when they were not
at home, they were informed at about 4-00 p.m. that Bhimappa
Meti who had sustained injuries in the year 2012 had committed
suicide in front of his house by consuming poison and it is the
claim that a death note was found stating that petitioners and
accused No.4 were the cause for the death. Based on the
complaint, FIR came to be registered of such incident in Crime
No.193 of 2017 for offences punishable under Section 306 read
with Section 34 of the IPC. On completion of investigation a
charge sheet is filed by the Police against the petitioners and
accused No.4 adding offence punishable under Section 506
along with Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC. It is at that juncture
the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the
subject petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri
K.L. Patil would submit that there is no evidence of instigation
as is found in the complaint or in the alleged note that was
found in the T-shirt of the deceased stating that the petitioners
and accused No.4 were the cause for death. The narration in the
complaint is that the deceased being fed up asking money for
five years commits suicide in the year 2017 for an accident that
had happened in the year 2012. There cannot be any instigation
or abetment as required in law for an offence under Section 306
of the IPC.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
2nd respondent/complainant would vehemently refute the
submissions and contends that the petitioners are responsible
for the death of the deceased as no money was given for five
years and being fed up asking money the deceased committed
suicide. Therefore, it is a matter for trial for the petitioners to
come out clean.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also
toe the lines of the learned counsel representing the 2nd
respondent.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and
perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The accident
had occurred on 8-01-2012 in which the deceased had
sustained grievous injuries and had to depend on others for
various day-to-day activities is also not in dispute. It is the
claim that expenses of Rs.7,00,000/- were incurred on the
deceased for his treatment in the accident for which insurance
had been claimed and apart from that he was also demanding
the owner of the tractor to pay some more amount. The owner is
said to have already paid Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses
and when there was demand for more money, the same was
refused and deceased was threatened with dire consequences.
All these instances have happened in the year 2012. On one
fatal day i.e., on 23-08-2017 the deceased commits suicide in
front of his house and the reason for suicide is indicated as the
petitioners not fulfilling the amount that he had demanded five
years ago. The complaint is registered on 23-08-2017 by the
father of the deceased narrating that his son being fed up of
asking money for 6 years had committed suicide. The complaint
reads as follows:
"EªÀjUÉ,
ªÀiÁ£Àå ¦.J¸ï.L.¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ
ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉ
£Á£ÀÄ §¸À¥Àà ±ÉÃR¥Àà ªÉÄÃn, ªÀAiÀiÁ:55 ªÀµÀð, eÁw: »AzÀÆ PÀÄgÀ§gÀ,
GzÉÆåÃUÀ: MPÀÌ®ÄvÀ£À ¸Á|| ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀ f|| ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃl ºÉý §gɬĹPÉÆlÖ
¦ügÁå¢ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23/08/2017 ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.9945877148
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß
ºÉAqÀw ±ÁAvÀªÀé ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ 1) ªÀÄ®è¥Áà 2) ©üêÀÄ¥Àà §¸À¥Àà ªÉÄÃn, ªÀAiÀiÁ:22
ªÀµÀð, 3) ®QëöäèÁ¬Ä ¸ÉÆ¸É gÉÃtÄPÁ F ¥ÀæPÁgÀ J®ègÀÆ PÀÆr EgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. FUÀ
6 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 08/01/2012 gÀAzÀÄ AiÀÄ®èªÀÄä£À UÀÄqÀØPÉÌ £ÀªÀÄÆägÀ
¥ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ¥ÁgÀ¥Àà wªÀÄä£ÀߪÀgÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀiÁ°ÌAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ mÁæPÀÖgÀ¬ÄzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è £À£Àß
ªÀÄUÀ ©üêÀÄ¥Àà ªÉÄÃn CªÀ£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ£ÀÄ. CAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 5 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ
¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ PÀªÀÄvÀV PÁæ¸ï ºÀwÛgÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÀÄ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ mÁæPÀÖgÀ£ÀÄß CzÀgÀ
ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ Cwà eÉÆÃgÁV C®PÀëvÀ£À¢AzÀ £Àqɹ mÁæPÀÖgÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆüÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ먀 PÉqÀ«
C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆägÀ £Á®ÄÌ d£ÀgÀÄ wÃjPÉÆArzÀÄÝ C®èzÉà £À£Àß
ªÀÄUÀ ©üêÀÄ¥Àà¤UÉ ¸ÉÆAl¢AzÀ PɼÀUÀqÉ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ¨Ájà UÁAiÀÄ ¥ÉnÖ¤AzÀ CªÀgÀ
¸ÉÆAlzÀ PɼÀV£À ¨sÁUÀªÀÅ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ¥ÀæeÉÕ¹Üw¬ÄgÀ°®è. CªÀ¤UÉ ¢£À¤vÀå
PÀªÀiÁð¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §gÀÄwÛgÀ°®è ¸ÀzÀgÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ PÁ®PÉÌ £ÀªÀÄÆägÀ mÁæPÀÖgï
ªÀiÁ°PÀ£ÁzÀ ¥Àg¸À¥Àà ¥ÁgÀ¥Àà vÀªÀÄä£ÀߪÀgÀ EªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ RaðUÁV
70,000/- gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. DzÀgÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À zÀªÁSÁ£É
RZÀÄð 7 ®PÀëzÀµÀÄÖ §A¢zÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ E£ÀßµÀÄÖ ºÉaÑUÉ ºÀt PÉÆr CAvÁ
mÁæPÀÖgÀ ªÀiÁ°PÀjUÉ PÉýzÁUÀ £ÁªÀÅ ºÉaÑ£À ºÀt PÉÆqÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¤ÃªÀÅ J°è
ºÉÆÃUÀwÃj ºÉÆÃV AiÀiÁªÀ PÉÆÃnðUÉ PÉøÀ ºÁPÀwÃj ºÁQj ¨ÉzÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁr
vÁªÀÅ PÉÆlÖ 70,000/- gÀÆ¥ÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÁ¥Á¸ÀÄì PÉÆræ E®èªÉAzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ
ºÉÆrw« §rw« CAvÁ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÉzÀj¹ vÀªÀÄä ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì E¹zÀÄ
PÉÆArzÀÄÝ EvÀÄÛ.
DUÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ©üêÀÄ¥Àà¤UÉ
¯Éà £ÁªÀÅ PÉÆqÀµÀÄÖ gÉÆPÀÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÉøÀ ªÀÄÄV¹PÉƼÀîj AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà E£À¸ÀÆìgÀ£ïì
ºÀPÀ¨ÉÃqÀj CAvÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ avÀæ»A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. DUÁUÀ
£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ©üêÀÄ¥Àà£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ D §UÉÎ ºÉýzÁUÀ £ÁªÀÅ CªÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
ºÉüÀÄvÁÛ §A¢zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
EAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23/08/2017 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ®QëöäèÁ¬Ä ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ
DgÁªÀÄ«®èzÀ PÁgÀt E¼ÀPÀ¯ïUÉ zÀªÁSÁ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß
ºÉAqÀw ±ÁAvÀªÀé E¼ÀPÀ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉݪÀÅ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄ®è¥Àà ¢£ÀzÀAvÉ DqÀÄ
PÁAiÀÄ®Ä ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ¸ÀtÚ ªÀÄUÀ ©üêÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÛ £À£Àß
¸ÉÆ¸É gÉÃtÄPÁ E§âgÉà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝgÀÄ. EAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® £Á£ÀÄ E¼ÀPÀ¯ïzÀ°è
EzÁÝUÀ £ÀªÀÄÆägÀ ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚUËqÀ ±ÀAPÀgÀUËqÀ ¥Ánî EªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÆãÀ ªÀiÁr
¤£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ©üêÀÄ¥Àà£ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ZÀ¥ÀàgÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ UÉÆÃqÉ §rzÀ PÀ§ât
bÀr ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀnÖUÉUÉ PÀnÖzÀ ºÀUÀ΢AzÀ GgÀÄ®Ä ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É
CAvÁ ¸ÀÄ¢Ý w½¹zÀ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà UÁ§jAiÀiÁV £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw E§âgÀÆ
ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ©üêÀÄ¥Àà£À ±ÀªÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¥ÀàgÀzÀ°è PɼÀUÉ
ªÀÄ®V¹zÀÝgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ WÀl£É §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÆ¸É gÉÃtªÀé½UÉ «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV vÁ£ÀÄ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ ZÀ¥ÀàgÀzÀ° §ºÀ¼À ¸À¥Àà¼ÁVzÀÝjAzÀ §AzÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À
©üêÀÄ¥Àà£ÀÄ vÀ£ÀUÉ ¢£Á®Ä K¼À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ®VPÉƼÀî®Ä D¸ÀgÉUÉ CAvÁ PÀnÖzÀÝ
ºÀUÀ΢AzÀ GgÀÄ®Ä ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ MzÁÝqÀ°PÉÌ ºÀwÛzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ UÁ§jAiÀiÁV ¨Á¬Ä
ªÀiÁr aÃgÁrzÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ PÀmÉÖAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀĽvÀ ªÉÄʯÁgÀ¥Àà
PÀÄt¨ÉA¨É ºÁUÀÆ AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà zÉÆqÀتÀĤ EªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ ºÀUÀΣÀÄß ©aÑ PɼÀUÉ ºÁPÀ®Ä
©üêÀÄ¥Àà£ÀÄ MzÁÝqÀÄvÁÛ ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢zÀ£ÀÄ. F WÀl£É DzÁUÀ EAzÀÄ
¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 4 UÀAmÉAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ CAvÁ CªÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ PÉý UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ
£ÁªÀÅ CªÀ£À ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃV CªÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄÄnÖ C¼ÀĪÁUÀ CªÀ£À nà ±ÀlðAiÉƼÀUÉ ºÁ¼É
EzÀÝAvÉ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝjAzÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ®UÀß ¥ÀvÀæ ºÀjzÀÄ aÃnAiÀÄ
vÀÄPÀr¬ÄzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è K£ÉÆà §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ EvÀÄÛ. CzÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆrzÀ d£ÀjUÉ N¢¸À¯ÁV
CzÀgÀ°è "£À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ mÁæPÀÖzÀªÀgÉ PÁgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁåªÀÄtÚ AiÀÄ vÀ¼ÀUÀ®ªÀĤ, gÁAiÀÄ¥Àà
ªÀÄ. vÀ¼ÀUÀªÀĤ, §¸ÀªÀgÁd AiÀÄ.vÀ¼ÀUÀ®ªÀĤ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ¥ÁgÀ¥Àà wªÀÄä£ÀߪÀgÀ
EªÀgÀÄ PÀÆrPÉÆArgÀĪÀgÀÄ" CAvÁ §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ N¢ ºÉý PÉý UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ.
ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ 1) zÁåªÀÄtÚ AiÀÄ vÀ¼ÀUÀ®ªÀĤ, 2) gÁAiÀÄ¥Àà vÀAzÉ
ªÀÄÄPÀÌtÚ vÀ¼ÀUÀ°ªÀĤ, 3) §¸ÀªÀgÁd AiÀĪÀÄ£À¥Àà vÀ¼ÀUÀ®ªÀĤ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ mÁæPÀÖgÀ D®PÀ
¥ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ¥ÁgÀ¥Àà wªÀÄä£ÀߪÀgÀ, ¸Á\\J®ègÀÆ §¼ÀPÀ®¢£Àß EªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ PÀÆr FUÀ 6
ªÀµÀð »AzÀ DzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ PÉøÀ£ÀÄß vÁªÀÅ PÉÆlÖµÀÄÖ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¹PÉƼÀîj CAvÁ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ©üêÀÄ¥Àà¤UÉ DUÁUÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ
»A¸É ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ zÀÄgÀ¥ÉæÃgÀuɬÄAzÀ ¤ÃrzÀÝjAzÀ CzÉà «µÀAiÀĪÁV £À£Àß
ªÀÄUÀ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ T£ÀßvÉUÉƼÀUÁV EAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23/08/2017 gÀAzÀÄ
¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 4 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁgÀÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ E®èzÀ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è
GgÀÄ®Ä ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ CªÀÀ£À ªÀÄgÀtPÉÌ qÉvï £ÉÆÃlzÀ°è §gÉzÀ
£Á®ÄÌ d£ÀgÉà PÁgÀtÂÃPÀÈvÀjzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ZÁj¹ FUÀ vÀqÀªÁV
§AzÀÄ ¦ügÁå¢ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä £À£ÀßzÀÄ ¦ügÁå¢
EgÀvÀÛzÉ."
FIR is registered based upon the said complaint and the Police
after investigation have also filed charge sheet for an incident of
the year 2012. The son of the complainant dies on 23-08-2017
five years after the said incident. There is no material collected
or produced along with the charge sheet that the petitioners
have instigated the deceased for 5 years for him to commit
suicide. Therefore, it is not a case where the ingredients found
for abetment under Section 107 of IPC even exist in the case at
hand for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
10. The issue with regard to abetment to suicide under
Section 306 of IPC 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
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
2021 SCC Online SC 737
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 Mahajan 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."
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)
12. The Apex Court in the case of AMALENDU PAL
V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL4, has held as follows::
(2001) 9 SCC 618
(2010) 1 SCC 707
"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 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
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
(2010) 12 SCC 190
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."
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
(2020) 10 SCC 200
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£ÀªÀgÀÄ «µÀ PÀÄrzÀÄ
DvÀäºÀvÉå 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
UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀzÀAzÀÄ ¸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 ¥ÀæeÁջãÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è PɼÀUÉ ©¢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
EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CA§Ä¯É£ïì ªÀÄÄASÁvÀgÀ UÀÄ©â ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ºÉÆÃV
C°è ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹ ªÉÊzÀågÀ ¸À®ºÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðj f¯Áè
D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸À¯ÁAiÀÄÄÛ, C°è aQvÉì ¥sÀ°¸ÀzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.10.2012£Éà ±ÀÄPÀæªÁgÀ
ªÀÄzsÀågÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 12.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è L.¹.AiÀÄÄ ªÁqïð£À°è ªÀÄgÀt
ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 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 ¸ÀªÉð
£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£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, F d«Ää£À §UÉÎ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ £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°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ F d«ÄãÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ zÀPÀÄ̪ÀÅ¢®è. ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀĨÉÃPÉA¢ÀzÀÝgÉà 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£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄUÉ
eÁw ¤AzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ £ÀªÀÄUÉ
ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆlÄÖ £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ°è £ÉªÀÄ䢬ÄAzÀ ¨Á¼À®Ä
©qÀÄwÛgÀ°®è ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.10.2012gÀAzÀÄ zÀAqÀ£À²ªÀgÀ ¥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£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À»¸À¯ÁgÀzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.10.2012£ÉÃ
UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ ªÀiÁgÀÄvÀªÀÄä£ÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ ªÁ¹ ªÀĺÉñï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ
ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀjUÉ CAzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÀ§âPÉÌ HlPÉÌ PÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä £ÀªÄÀ ä
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÁUÀ ªÀĺÉñïgÀªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ C¼ÀÄvÁÛ £Á£ÀÄ ¸Á® ªÀiÁr
©.¹.PÁªÀ¯ï£À°è D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆAqÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ. F ¢£À £À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß D¹Û ¹UÀÄwÛ®è
ªÀQîgÁzÀ ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå F ¢£À ¥ÀÄ£À: £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÉÆðøï PÀA¥ÉèAmï PÉÆnÖzÁÝ£É.
£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ F D¹Û ¤£ÀUÉ zÀPÀÄ̪ÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝ£É. DzÀÝjAzÀ F ¢£À
£Á£ÀÄ «µÀPÀÄrzÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. DªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÉÆðøïgÀjUÉ
zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAiÉÆà ¤ÃqÀ° JAzÀÄ zÀÄT:¸ÀÄvÁÛ ªÀĺÉñïgÀªÀjUÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄÄAzÉ
ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. CzÀPÉÌ ªÀĺÉñïgÀªÀgÀÄ EµÀÖPÉ̯Áè ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÉzÀj DvÀäºÀvÉå 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£ÀUÉ vÀ©âPÉÆAqÀÄ
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ zÀÄT:¸ÀÄvÁÛ UÉÆüÁrzÀgÀÄ CzÀjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ «µÀPÀÄr¢zÁÝ£ÉAiÉÆà CxÀªÁ ªÀQîgÁzÀ ºÉZï.J¸ï.¸ÀzÁ²ªÀAiÀÄå ©£ï
¹zÀÝ°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄð£À zÉéõÀPÁÌV £ÀªÀÄä vÉÆÃlzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃV £À£ßÀ
UÀAqÀ¤UÉ «µÀ PÀÄr¹zÁÝgÉAiÉÆà JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀıÀªÁV vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ
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 would not be
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.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No. 363 of 2021 pending
before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunagund
stand quashed qua the petitioners.
SD
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
