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
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a criminal revision petition challenging the order of a Sessions Judge to frame charges under Sections 306 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment of suicide (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case is that the accused had an extramarital relationship with the deceased, who was mentally disturbed after being scolded by the accused with words like "go away and die" during a quarrel, which allegedly led to her jumping into a well and committing suicide (!) (!) (!) .
The defense argued that even if the allegations are accepted, they do not constitute the offences under Sections 306 and 204 IPC, particularly emphasizing the lack of evidence of intent to instigate or abet the suicide (!) (!) .
The court reviewed relevant principles, noting that the mere utterance of words like "go away and die" in a moment of anger does not amount to abetment, especially without proof of the accused's intent or mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide (!) (!) (!) .
The court reiterated that for abetment under Section 306 IPC, it is essential to establish the accused's intention to instigate or aid the act, not just the impact of their words or conduct on the deceased (!) (!) .
Based on these considerations, the court found that the accused's words were spoken in a fit of passion without the requisite intent to abet, and therefore, the offences under Sections 306 and 204 IPC were not made out (!) .
Consequently, the court set aside the order framing charges and discharged the accused from the offences under Sections 306 and 204 IPC (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with drafting or legal interpretation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts leading to allegations of abetment. (Para 2 , 3) |
ORDER :
1. The 1st 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 2nd accused, who is now no more. When the 2nd 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 2nd 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 allegat
Intent of the accused is crucial in establishing abetment of suicide under IPC; mere utterances in a quarrel do not suffice.
Intention of the accused is crucial in defining abetment to suicide; mere quarrelsome statements do not fulfill this criterion.
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.
Section 107 of I.P.C reads as abetment of a thing.
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
