IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Abetment of suicide – In order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence – It would also require an active act or direct act which led deceased to commit suicide.
(2) A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 read with Section 107 – Abetment of suicide – A person would be abetting doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing or if he encourages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission doing of that thing – To satisfy requirement of ‘instigation’, it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of consequence – But, a reasonable certainty to incite consequence must be capable of being spelt out – Where accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred – A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. (Paras 32.1 and 34.1)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Conviction and sentence – In a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to commission of suicide – Merely on allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to time of occurrence on part of accused which led or compelled deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable – In order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence – It would also require an active act or direct act which led deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of accused must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he committed suicide – In a case of death due to consumption or administering of poison or insecticide or pesticide, be it homicidal or suicidal, recovery of trace of such poison or insecticide or pesticide is crucial – FSL report as well as chemical analysis report are silent as to whether any trace of pesticide was detected from any of seized articles – Prosecution had failed to prove charge of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC against appellant – Conviction of appellant is wholly unsustainable – Conviction of appellant under Section 306 of IPC set aside. (Paras 36, 39, 41, 46, 49 and 50)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – As a general principle, it can be said that in a case of death by poisoning, be it homicidal or suicidal and which is based on circumstantial evidence, recovery of trace of poison consumed by or administered to deceased is of critical importance – It forms a part of chain; rather it would complete chain to prove homicide or suicide – Human mind is an enigma – It is well neigh impossible to unravel mystery of human mind – There can be myriad reasons for a man or a woman to commit or attempt to commit suicide: it may be a case of failure to achieve academic excellence, oppressive environment in college or hostel, particularly for students belonging to marginalized sections, joblessness, financial difficulties, disappointment in love or marriage, acute or chronic ailments, depression, so on and so forth – It may not always be the case that someone has to abet commission of suicide – Circumstances surrounding deceased in which he finds himself are relevant. (Paras 46 and 47)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal by special leave takes exception to conviction of appellant under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Conviction of appellant under Section 306 of IPC is set aside. Judgment and order of trial court dated 06.07.2004 as affirmed by High Court vide judgment and order dated 17.09.2010 are hereby set aside and quashed.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

This appeal by special leave takes exception to the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. It may be mentioned that the Fast Track Court – III Mysore vide the judgment and order dated 06.07.2004 passed in S.C. No. 26/2002 convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo RI for four months for the aforesaid offence. Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka, being Criminal Appeal No. 1139/2004 (SJ-A) was dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 17.09.2010 by upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Prosecution case

3. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant was earlier residing in the house of the deceased as a tenant though on the date of the incident he was residing elsewhere as the term of the lease agreement had expired. On 05.07.2000 at about 09:00 AM, the deceased was returning home after dropping the children of her sister in the school. When she had reached near the Canara Bank, the appellant was waiting there and teased her to marry him. The deceased refused to respond. Appellant threatened her that if she did not agree to marry him, he would destroy the family of her sisters, outrage their modesty and would kill them. After she reached home, she informed her sisters about the above incident over telephone. Thereafter, she consumed poison in the house. The neighbours saw through the window of the house the deceased lying on the floor in a painful condition. They got the door of the house opened. The deceased was suffering from pain due to consumption of poison. In the meanwhile, one of her sisters and her husband came to the house. All of them took the deceased to the Nirmala Devi Hospital whereafter she was shifted to the Mission Hospital. Ultimately, she died on 06.07.2000 at 07:30 PM.

4. Raju, the father of the deceased, lodged the first information alleging that appellant was responsible for his daughter committing suicide. The first information was lodged on 07.07.2000 at 06:30 AM.

5. On receipt of the first information, police registered Crime No. 100/2000 under Section 306 IPC. In the course of the investigation, post-mortem examination of the deceased was carried out and the viscera was sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore (FSL). The chemical analysis report indicated presence of Organophosphate pesticide in stomach, small intestine, liver, kidney and blood. Therefore, the doctor who had carried out the post-mortem examination opined that the death of the deceased was due to respiratory failure as a result of consumption of substance containing Organophosphate compound. On completion of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet where the appellant was named as the accused.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses and got eleven documents marked as exhibits. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

7. On examination of the evidence on record and after hearing both the sides, the trial court held that the prosecution had proved the charge against the appellant that he had abetted the deceased to commit suicide beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted for the said offence whereafter he was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default stipulation.

8. As already mentioned above, the appellant had appealed against the aforesaid conviction and sentence before the High Court of Karnataka (for short ‘the High Court’ hereinafter). By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the order of conviction. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as be