Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
Manikantha V.K. S/o V.L. Krishnaraj - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 13795 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 33879 of 2024
Decided On : 23-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajath
For the Respondent: Channappa Erappa
To convict under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement of the accused in driving the victim to commit suicide, which was absent in this case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Criminal petition arising from proceedings in Crime No.187/2024 against accused for abetment related to the suicide of deceased linked to a family dispute - No substantial allegations or evidence to prove instigation or active involvement in driving the deceased to suicide - Merely vague assertions without basis cannot sustain a charge of abetment. (Paras 1, 5, 15)
(B) Dissent - Not applicable as the decision reflects unanimous handling of the case based on principles of abetment which require a clear nexus between actions of the accused and the commission of suicide. (Paras 11, 12, 17)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and parties involved. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. description of the complaint and allegations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion on the legal framework regarding abetment of suicide. (Para 6) |
| 4. analysis of previous relevant case law. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
1. Both these petitions arise out of the impugned proceedings in Crime No.187/2024 registered by the respondent-Bylakuppe Police against the petitioners herein and other accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 108 read with 3(5) of BNS Act, 2023, which is currently pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Periyapatna, Mysuru District.
2. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for both the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
3. Respondent No.2 having been served with notice of the petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2-defacto complainant is the cousin brother of one deceased-Suresha and Smt.Pallavi is the wife of said Suresha, pursuant to whose demise, respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint dated 14.11.2024 against Sri.Manikanta-Accused No.8, who is petitioner in Criminal Petition No.13795/2024 and Sri.K.C.Shashikirana-Accused No.12, who is petitioner in Writ Petition No.33879/2024 and other accused persons. A perusal of the impugned complaint will indicate that respondent No.2 specifically alleged that the deceased-Suresha had entered into a Sale Agreement with Accused No.1-Manjunatha and there was a dispute in relation to immovable properties, during the course of which Accused No.8 and Accused No.12, the petitioners herein have also been made liable for the alleged offences. In this context, it is pertinent to note that accused Nos.1 to 7 had entered into a registered 'Joint Development Agreement' with Accused No.1-Manikanta, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.13795/2024 and one Sri.Keerthi-Accused No.9, in relation to immovable property in respect of which the deceased-Suresha is said to have entered into a Sale Agreement with Accused No.1-Manjunatha. In addition thereto, except general, vague, bald and omnibus allegations made against both the petitioners, no specific instance or allegations for commission of abetment of suicide have been made either against petitioner/accused No.8 or petitioner/accused No.12 inasmuch as, no material particulars/detail constituting the said offences including instigation/ incitement by the petitioners/accused persons have been made in the impugned complaint.In this context, it would be necessary to reproduce the entire complaint, which reads as under:
5. Bare perusal of the aforesaid complaint would indicate that the same does not disclose the commission of offence of abetment of suicide by the petitioner/accused No.8 and petitioner/accused No.12, who are merely said to have asked the deceased to sort out the issue and there is no threat, incitement or instigation amounting to abetment alleged to have been made by the petitioners to the deceased and his wife so as to drive them to commit suicide as alleged by respondent No.2-complainant.
6. The scope and ambit of offence punishable for abetment of suicide has come before the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court on numerous occasions including the following cases:
(1) Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Vs. State of Karnataka through SHO Kataki Police , 2024 SCC Online SC 3541
(2) Nipun Aneja and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , Civil Appeal No. 654/2017 dated 03.10.2024
(3) V.S. Suresh and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another , W.P. No. 5821/2024 dated 03.09.2024
7. In Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"PANKAJ MITHAL, J. : The accused- appellant was charged under Sections 417, 376 and 306 of the Penal Code, 18601. The trial court acquitted him of all the above offences, but on appeal by the State of Karnataka t
