Sri G S P Veera Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 4172 Kant

                             1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                           BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.6749/2020

BETWEEN

1.    SRI. G. S. P. VEERA REDDY
      S/O LATE VEERAREDDY
      AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
      OCC: BUSINESS

2.    SRI. G. VEERASEKHAR REDDY
      S/O G. S. P. VEERAREDDY
      AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
      OCC: BUSINESS
      BOTH R/O. NO.81, ROAD NO.9,
      JUBILEE HILLS, HYDRABAD - 500 033
      TELANGANA STATE.
                                           ... PETITIONERS

[BY SRI. MALI RAMACHANDRAPPA APPASAHEB, ADVOCATE]

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REP. BY HONNALI POLICE STATION
      NOW REP. BY SPP
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      BENGALURU BENCH
      BENGALURU - 01.

2.    SRI. SEERENDRA
      S/O. SRINIVAS M
      AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                               2



     OCC: STUDENT,
     R/o HOSA HOSALLI, 1st CAMP,
     TQ. HONNALI,
     DISTRICT: DAVANAGERE
                                                ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SMT. YASHODA K.P., HCGP FOR R1]

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED
18.02.2020 REGISTERED IN HONNALI P.S. CR.NO.34/2020
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306,149 OF IPC PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.Dn) AND JMFC, HONNALI,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT IN SO FAR AS THE SAME RELATE TO THE
PETITIONERS HERIN AS THE SAME BEING TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND
NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

proceedings in Crime No.34/2020 registered for offences

punishable under Sections 306 and 149 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri. Mali Ramachandrappa Appasaheb,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Yashoda

K.P., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have

perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, as

borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

Petitioner No.1 is the founder Chairman of a private limited

company GVPR Engineers Ltd. Petitioner No.2 was the Managing

Director at the relevant point in time of the said company.

Respondent No.2 is the complainant.

4. The father of respondent No.2 was an employee of the

Company. Certain issues with regard to non-payment of certain

amount to the father of the complainant and others, had

resulted in certain squabble with the petitioners and the father

of the complainant. After which, the father of the complainant

committed suicide on 18.02.2020.

5. Pursuant to the said act of commission of suicide,

respondent No.2 registers a complaint against the petitioners for

offences punishable under Sections 306 and 149 of IPC. It is at

that juncture, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this

Court in the subject petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,

Sri. Mali Ramachandrappa Appasaheb would take this Court

through the statements of petitioner No.1 to contend that it is

petitioner No.1, who was being threatened by the father of the

complainant that he would commit suicide and write the name

of the petitioners on the death note to such suicide and submit

that the petitioners have never instigated on such commission.

7. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1,

Smt. K.P. Yashoda would submit that the police after

investigation have filed a 'B' report before the competent Court,

which is yet to be accepted or any order passed on the said

report. Be that as it may.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

respective submissions made by the learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

9. The narration in the complaint would indicate no

ingredient of Section 107 of IPC being satisfied for an offence to

become punishable under Section 306 of IPC, Section 306 of IPC

cannot be in isolation considered unless ingredients of Section

107 of IPC are satisfied. In identical circumstances, this Court in

Crl.P.No.6390/2017 disposed on 14.09.2021, has held 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 PUNJAB1has 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

(2017) 1 SCC 433

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.

11. The Apex Court in the case of RAMESH

KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH2 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

(2001) 9 SCC 618

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 BENGAL3,

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

(2010) 1 SCC 707

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 MAHAJAN4, 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

(2010) 12 SCC 190

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 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

PUNJAB5 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 ***

(2020) 10 SCC 200

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 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£Éà 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£Éà UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ ªÀiÁgÀÄvÀªÀÄä£ÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ ªÁ¹ ªÀĺÉñï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ°AUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀjUÉ CAzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÀ§âPÉÌ HlPÉÌ PÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä £ÀªÀÄä 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£Àß 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¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É."

(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."

8. Subsequent to the judgment rendered by this Court

in the aforesaid case rendered on 13.09.2021, the Apex Court in

the case of KANCHAN SHARMA V. STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH AND ANOTHER6 has again reiterated necessary

ingredients to establish an offence under Section 306 of IPC. The

complaint does not narrate any circumstance that had

instigated the father of the complainant to commit suicide by

any act of the petitioners.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

2021 SCC OnLine SC 737

ii. Proceedings pending in Crime No.34/2020, stands

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SJK