Karnataka High Court
Abdul Suban Sab vs The State By Bagepalli Police on 22 January, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
CRL.A No. 600 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 600 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
ABDUL SUBAN SAB
S/O LATE ABDUL NAJEER SAB
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING NEAR URDU SCHOOL
DVG ROAD
BAGEPALLI TOWN
DIST. CHIKKABALLAPUR - 561 207.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHAIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY BAGEPALLI POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUOTR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed BANGALORE - 560 001.
by HEMAVATHY
GANGABYRAPPA
2. SHAHIN TAJ
Location: HIGH
COURT OF W/O LATE RAHAMATHULLA @ NAZEEM
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT 4TH WARD, BAGEPALLI TOWN
DIST. CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.
3. MOMIN @ SYED MOMIN
S/O ABDUL AZEEJ SAB
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
MASONARY WORK
R/AT 4TH WARD, BAGEPALLI TOWN
DIST. CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
CRL.A No. 600 of 2015
4. AMMAJAN @ SHANAJBI
W/O SYED MOMIN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE
R/AT 4TH WARD, BAGEPALLI TOWN
DIST. CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1
SRI MOHANA CHANDRA P, ADVOCAT FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) Cr.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2012
PASSED BY THE ADHOC S.J., F.T.C.-I, CHIKKABALLAPUR IN
S.C.No.107/2011 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 R/W 34
OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the complainant -P.W.1
challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 26.12.2012
passed in S.C.No.107/2011 by the Fast Track Court -I,
Chikkaballapur, whereunder respondent Nos.2 to 4 -
accused Nos.1 to 3 have been acquitted for offence
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for
brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that :
The marriage of the deceased - Rehamathulla @
Najeem S/O Abdul Subansab has taken place with Sahina
Taj -respondent No.1 -accused No.1 as per muslim
custom at Chelur isama. Both husband and wife were in
cordial terms for about 03 months. Thereafter, accused
No.1 -Sahina Taj without informing to family members of
the husband used to go her parents house. In that regard
panchayath had taken place and she was brought back to
her husband house i.e. 03 months prior to the incident.
Accused No.1 has lodged the complaint alleging
harassment by her husband and other family members
and case came to be registered in Bagepalli Police Station
against her husband and 05 others. The deceased -
Rehamathulla @ Najeem has gone to Orissa for attending
Jamath for 40 days after returning, he came to know
about the criminal case against him and his relatives. The
deceased felt bad and humiliated and disgusted in life,
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
consumed the poison on 28.06.2010 and came to his
house and told his father that he has consumed poison
and fell unconscious. The deceased was taken to
Government Hospital, Bageppalli and he died in the
Hospital. The father of the deceased has filed complaint
and it came to be registered in UDR No.15/2010. The
father of the deceased again filed complaint alleging
abetment by accused persons on 25.07.2010 and
produced death note along with. The police after
investigation have filed charge sheet against accused
persons for offence punishable under Section 306 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The case came to be committed to the Sessions
Court. The Sessions Court has framed charges against
accused persons for the offence punishable under Section
306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution in order
to prove its case has examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to
14, got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 9. Ex.D1 to D4
have been marked on behalf of accused persons in cross
examination of prosecution witnesses. The statement of
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
accused persons came to be recorded under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing
arguments on both sides has formulated points for
consideration and passed impugned judgment acquitting
respondents for offence punishable under Section 306 read
with Section 34 of IPC. The said judgment of acquittal has
been challenged by the complainant in this appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for appellant -accused,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 -
State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant -accused
would contend that accused No.1 who is wife of the
deceased used to go her parents house without informing
her husband and other family members and in that regard
panchayath was held and accused No.1 has executed
consent letter. He further submits that deceased went on
piligrimage to Orissa on 10.05.2010 and after returning he
came to know regarding the complaint filed by his wife i.e.
accused No.1 and registering of case in Bagepalli Police
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
Station, filing of charge sheet and pendency of Criminal
Case No.119/2011. He further submits that he went to
enquire regarding same to the house of his wife i.e.
accused persons and at that time he has been assaulted
by accused persons. Because of humiliation and insult he
consumed poison on the same day and committed suicide.
He submits that it is acts of accused persons which
abetted to the deceased to commit suicide. Accused No.1
has filed false complaint against the deceased and his
family members and in that case accused persons came to
be acquitted. On these grounds, he prays to allow the
appeal and convict respondents for offence punishable
under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
would contend that earlier P.W.1 has filed complaint and
there is no allegation of any abetment to commit suicide
by accused persons and it came to be register in UDR
No.15/2010. P.W.1 again filed complaint on 25.07.2010
i.e., after 27 days in that there is reference of death note
said to have been left by the deceased which is at Ex.P3.
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
The contents of Ex.P3 have not been proved. The
deceased was not known reading and writing of Kannada
language. The deceased who has executed release deed as
per Ex.P4 has not been given money which was mentioned
in it and therefore, depressed by the same he has
committed suicide. The deceased was habitual drunker
and therefore, he went to Jamath at Orissa for 40 days.
The post -mortem report and the FSL report indicate that
stomach and other organs of the deceased contains
alcohol and itself indicate that he is drunker. The act of
accused No.1 filing of complaint and act of other accused
persons assaulting the deceased does not amounts to
abetment to commit suicide. There was option for the
deceased to file complaint against his wife and also give
divorce (talak), the suicide is not only option to the
deceased. Considering all these aspects, learned Sessions
Judge has rightly acquitted accused persons. With these,
he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent -No.1 -State has supported contentions of
learned counsel for the appellant -complainant.
8. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has
perused the impugned judgment and trial Court records.
Considering the grounds urged, the following point arises
for my consideration:
"Whether the Trial Court has erred
in acquitting respondent Nos.2 to 4 -
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences
punishable under Section 306 read with
Section 34 of IPC?"
My answer to the above point is in negative for the
following reasons
The deceased committed suicide by consuming
poison is not in dispute. It is case of the prosecution that
accused No.1 had filed false complaint against the
deceased and his family members and case came to be
registered in Crime No.115/2010 of Bagepalli Police
Station and charge sheet has been filed and the criminal
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
case has been registered against the deceased and his
family members. On coming to know about the said
complaint filed by accused No.1, the deceased went to the
house of accused persons, wherein he stated to have been
assaulted by them and therefore, humiliated by the same
and got insulted with the said incident, he consumed
poison and committed suicide. Whether the act of accused
No.1 filing of a complaint against her husband and his
family members and assault and abuse by accused
persons to the deceased amounts to abetment to commit
suicide or not.
9. Section 306 of IPC reads as under:
"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."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
10. Section 107 of IPC reads as under:
"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."
11. As is clear from the plain language of the
Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the
accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide.
A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly - 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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
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.
12. In Swamy Prahaladdas Vs State of M.P.
and Another1, the appellant remarked to the deceased
that 'go and die' and the deceased thereafter, committed
suicide. The Apex Court held that:-
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which
are often employed in the heat of the
moment between quarrelling people. Nothing
serious is expected to follow thereafter. The
said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens
rea' on the assumption that these words
would be carried out in all events. ..."
13. In Madan Mohan Singh Vs State of Gujarat
and Another2, the Apex Court held that in order to bring
out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as
contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the
accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the
person concerned as a result of that abetment is required.
Reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438
Reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid
or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide
is a must for attracting Section 306.
14. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs State of
West Bengal3, the Apex Court 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.
Reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in recent decision in
the case Mahendra Awase Vs The State of Madhya
Pradesh4 has held as under:
"16. 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."
16. In M. Mohan vs. State5, Apex Court
followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh6,
wherein it was held as under:-
"41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh
Kumar has examined different shades of the
Reported in 2025 INSC 76
Reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626
Reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as
under: (SCC p. 629)
"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."
In the said case this Court came to the
conclusion that there is no evidence and material
available on record wherefrom an inference of the
appellant- accused having abetted commission of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein)
may necessarily be drawn."
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of
the cases decided by this Court are 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 this act must have been intended to
push the deceased into such a position that he/she
committed suicide."
17. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court noted (supra),
to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by
his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct
should have created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of
anger and emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
18. In the case on hand, the accusation against
accused person is that accused No.1 has filed complaint
against the deceased and his family members and
criminal case came to be registered against them and on
coming to know about the same after returning from
Orissa after attending 40 days Jamath, the deceased went
to the house of accused persons and enquired about the
same where he has alleged to have been assaulted and
also abused him. If the accused persons are assaulted
and abused him, he committing of suicide is not only
option to the deceased. The deceased ought to have filed
complaint against accused persons for assaulting and
abusing him. Therefore, the said act of accused persons
not created such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide.
19. The alleged suicide note said to have been left
by the deceased is at Ex.P3. Even though the signature of
the deceased on Ex.P3 has been established by the expert
opinion but the contents are not established. It has come
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2745
in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the
deceased was not knowing reading and writing of
Kannada language. It is also not established that contents
of death note are in the hand writing of the deceased.
20. Considering all these aspects, learned Sessions
Judge has rightly acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 4 -
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. There are no
grounds for setting aside the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the trial Court.
21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
