Intent of the accused is crucial in establishing abetment of suicide under IPC; mere utterances in a quarrel do not suffice.

ORDER : 

1. The 1^st accused in S.C.427/2024 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kasaragod, arising out of crime No.577/2023 of Melparamba police station filed this petition under Section 438 & 442 of the BNSS, challenging Annexure-A4 order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting his application for discharge.

2. As per Annexure-A4 order, the learned Sessions Judge decided to frame charge against the petitioner under Sections 306 and 204 of IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had an extra marital relationship with the 2^nd accused, who is now no more. When the 2^nd accused came to know that the petitioner was about to marry another woman, she inquired about the same with the petitioner. Enraged by the query made by the 2^nd accused, the petitioner scolded the deceased saying “go away and die”. It is alleged that, the deceased who was mentally disturbed due to the above act of the petitioner, jumped into a well, along with her daughter aged 5¹/2 and committed suicide on 15.9.2023 between 5.10 a.m and 6.00 a.m.

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.

5. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

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 the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out.

7. Section 306 IPC reads as follows :-

306. Abetment of suicide.—

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

8. Section 107 IPC defines the term abetment as instigating, conspiring or intentionally aiding someone to commit an offence. In the decision in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. 2002 KHC 1270, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court held in paragraph 12 that :

“....Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional....”

9. In the decision in Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. 1995 KHC 3306, the Apex Court held that, words which are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people does not amount to abetment of suicide.

10. In the decision in Cyriac v. S.I. of Police, 2005 KHC 1021 in paragraph 17 and 18 this Court held as follows :

17. From the discussion already made by me, I hold as follows: The act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts consequence of suic