Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
Safwan Adhur S/o Sayyid Ibrahim Thangal – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application challenging framing of charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of the case and arguments from both sides. (Para 3) |
ORDER :
2. As per Annexure-A4 order, the learned Sessions Judge decided to frame charge against the petitioner under Sections 306 and 204 of IPC.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner are believed, the same will not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 204 IPC. Therefore he prayed for setting aside Annexure-A4 order by which the Sessions Judge decided to frame charge against the petitioner.
6. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was already married to another person. The petitioner had an extra marital relationship with her. When the deceased came to know that the petitioner was going to marry another woman, she called the petitioner over the phone and inquired about his decision to marry another woman. It appears that, in the ensuing wordy altercation the petitioner scolded the deceased and said “go away and die”. According to the learned counsel, such a comment made by the petitioner in a heat of passion was without any intention to abet t
Intention of the accused is crucial in defining abetment to suicide; mere quarrelsome statements do not fulfill this criterion.
Intent of the accused is crucial in establishing abetment of suicide under IPC; mere utterances in a quarrel do not suffice.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, evidence of instigation or encouragement by the accused is essential; mere emotional turmoil does not suffice.
A mere casual comment made in a heated moment does not constitute instigation for suicide without intent.
Abetment under S.306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation, which was not present in this case.
Section 107 of I.P.C reads as abetment of a thing.
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation or abetment, mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
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
