IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
Jayaram and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2012
Decided on : 13-02-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 326, and 504 - Conviction and sentence of appellants for abetment of suicide and causing grievous hurt - The trial court's conviction was based on the alleged demand for loan repayment and subsequent suicide of the deceased - The court found no mens rea or instigation by the appellants to drive the deceased to suicide, emphasizing the need for direct incitement to establish abetment. (Paras 8, 10, 14, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of assaulting the father of the deceased and subsequently causing her suicide due to harassment over a loan repayment.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction, highlighting the lack of mens rea and the complexity of individual reactions to stressors.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants for abetment of suicide and related offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere demands for loan repayment do not constitute abetment unless there is clear instigation or intent to drive the victim to suicide.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This appeal is filed by appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2012 passed in S.C. No. 229/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court at Srirangapatna. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been convicted for offence under Sections 306, 326 and 504 of IPC. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for offence under Section 306 of IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for offence under Section 326 of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for offence under Section 504 of IPC. The trial Court ordered all the sentences to run concurrently.
2. Factual matrix of the prosecution is that, P.W.1 - Swamygowda and C.W.2 - Sarojamma are husband and wife and residents of Rampura village, Srirangapatna taluk. They had 5 daughters namely, Radha, Komala, Kavitha, Sowmya and Shruthi. Elder daughter Sowmya was given in marriage to the brother-in-law of accused No. 1. Accused No. 3 - Deepu had lent a loan of Rs. 15,000/- to Shruti - daughter of P.W.1. For non-repayment of the said loan, on 27.12.2009 at about 02.00 pm, appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention came near the house of P.W.1 and started abusing Shruti in filthy language for non-payment of loan to accused No. 3. At that time, P.W.1 - father of Shruti intervened and tried to console them and requested them not to make any quarrel in front of the house. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 being enraged upon the intervention of P.W.1, accused No. 1 assaulted on his right shoulder by club, accused No. 3 assaulted on his right forearm with club and caused hurt. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital and then to K.R. Hospital, Mysuru for treatment. He took treatment as inpatient and was discharged on 01.01.2010 and he returned home. When he prepared to lodge a complaint in the matter P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 consoled him saying that they will convene the panchayath and until then requested him not to lodge a complaint. Considering the request of elders, P.W.1 did not lodge complaint. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 after coming to know the fact that a panchayath is being convened in connection with the incident, they, in furtherance of their common intention, on 03.01.2010, at about 10.00 pm, came near the house of P.W.1 situated at Rampura village and started abusing, insulting and abetting the said Shruti by saying VERNACULAR MATTER. Said Shruti being disgusted in her life due to the assault of by appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 to her father, insulting herself and her father in public place in front of her house, by leaving a death note saying that the accused are the cause for her death, committed suicide by hanging in her cattle-shed in the midnight between 12.30 am to 01.00 am by means a veil. Charge sheet came to be filed against appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offence under Sections 326, 304, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court framed charges for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove the charge the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and M.O.1. Statement of P.W.3 has been marked as Ex.D.1. Statement of appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing arguments formulated points for consideration and after appreciating the evidence on record convicted appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 and sentenced them as noted above. Said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been challenged in this appeal.
3. Heard arguments of learned counsel appearing for appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 and learned HCGP for respondent - State.
4. Learned counsel for appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 would contend that the alleged assault is made on 27.12.2009
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. Sate (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605
Mohit Singhal and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2024 (1) SCC 417
Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana
M. Mohan v. State reported in 2011 (3) SCC 626
Ude Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2019 (17) SCC 301
Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 (1) SCC 750
AI
Mere demands for loan repayment do not constitute abetment of suicide unless there is clear instigation or intent to drive the victim to take their own life.
To establish abetment of suicide under Sec. 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or encouragement by the accused, along with the necessary mens rea, which was not proven in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide, the requirement of mens rea for abetment, and the caution against ....
For liability under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement in the suicide, which was absent in this case.
Abetment of suicide – Positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment – Element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible –....
For conviction under Sections 306 and 498A, clear evidence of instigation or aiding in suicide is essential; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
Section 306 of IPC reads as abetment of suicide.
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear proof of active instigation and direct acts leading to suicide is necessary; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.