Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Geeta – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2018
Decided On : 09-09-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Conviction and sentence – Taken at its highest, there is definitely evidence on record to show that over a period of few months neighbours were at loggerheads – While victim felt that her tuition classes were being disturbed, appellant’s family have also had grievance about victim and her family scolding children of appellant’s household – Not only were there heated exchanges, but physical blows were also alleged to have been administered by appellant’s party – Insofar as delivering of physical blows are concerned, today appellant stands acquitted for offence punishable under Section 323of IPC – She stands acquitted even from offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of IPC – Court cannot hold that when appellant’s family and victim’s family had heated exchanges, there was any intention to abet or to cause any member of either family to take their own life – These quarrels occur in everyday life and there was no instigation on part of appellant to such an extent that victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide – Appellant is not guilty of offence under Section 306 of IPC – Appellant acquitted of charge under Section 306 of IPC. (Paras 17, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court had convicted appellant for offence under Section 306 IPC as well as for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. While sentence of five years imprisonment was imposed for offence under Section 306, life imprisonment had been imposed along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Present appeal challenges judgment of High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi dated 27.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.3658 of 2011. By said judgment, appellant’s conviction under Section 306 of IPC as recorded by the Trial Court, was confirmed. However, appellant was acquitted of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi dated 27.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.3658 of 2011 is set aside. The appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds stand discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's conviction details. (Para 1 , 2 , 7) |
| 2. incident leading to the appeal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. trial court's findings on evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. victim's sensitivity and neighborhood dynamics. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. legal standards for abetment of suicide. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. final ruling of acquittal. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. The present appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi dated 27.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.3658 of 2011. By the said judgment, the appellant’s conviction under Section 306 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short the “IPC”), as recorded by the Trial Court, was confirmed. However, the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the “SC/ST Act”). Insofar as the sentence imposed for offence under Section 306 IPC was concerned, the High Court thought it fit to modify the sentence of five years, as imposed by the Trial Court, to that of three years imprisonment. However, the fine of Rs. 5000/-, as imposed by the Trial Court, was maintained, with a default sentence of six months for non-payment of fine.
2. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant for offence under Section 306 IPC as well as for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. While the sentence of five years imprisonment was imposed for offence under Section 306 , life imprisonment had been imposed along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
3. We have heard Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. L. Chidananda, learned counsel for the State. We have perused the records, including the Trial Court records.
4. The present matter pertains to an unfortunate incident that happened on 12.08.2008 when the deceased-Sarika, daughter of Peeraji Narayankar, set herself on fire around 10:00 p.m. in the night. She was taken to the Government Hospital, Bijapur for treatment. At the hospital, the deceased gave a statement before PW-16, Police Inspector Nagarjuna, which was exhibited as Ex. P-8. PW-16 – Nagarjuna, deposed that he received MLC from Bijapur District Hospital stating that a person by name Sarika was admitted to the hospital with burn injuries. After getting confirmation from the doctor about fitness of Sarika to give statement, he recorded the statement and obtained her thumb impression. PW-19 – Dr. Dileepa Ganjihala corroborated the statement to the effect that Sarika was conscious and was in a position to answer the questions. She had suffered about 58% burn injuries. Similarly, PW-20 – Dr. Shivanagowda Patil, also deposed that, on 13.08.2008, when PSI requested through a letter to give opinion as to whether Sarika was in a position to give a statement or not, he made an endorsement on the office copy that the injured was in a fit condition to give statement. The letter and the endorsement were marked as Ex. P-21 and Ex. P-21(a).
5. The statement marked as Ex. P-8, which formed the basis for the complaint and F.I.R., reads as under:
I have completed I.T.I and now studying in B.A III year. I take tuition classes to small children in my home. At the rented house of Geeta W/o Raju Indikar which is situated in front of our home, there used to come some other boys and make noise which troubled me as a result I told to Geeta Indikar Not to make noise as it disturbs me, for that she used to abuse me by saying "you bitch, what you advise me it's my house we do anything whatever we feel like" and " this dorr bitch is not married even after 25 years of age". Like that she used to harass me when she saw me she used to hurt m
Abetment of suicide – Quarrels in everyday life cannot be termed as instigation to commit suicide.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be direct acts of incitement closely linked to the suicide, and mere denial of marriage does not constitute abetment.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be direct instigation with clear mens rea, and the act must be closely proximate to the suicide. Vague allegations are insufficient for convicti....
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding, which was absent in this case.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or encouragement by the accused, which was not proven in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
