Point of Law: Court has considered the scope of Section 306 and the ingredients which are essential for abetment as set out in Section 107 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants/A1 to A6 are convicted for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment each vide judgment in S.C.No.316 of 2008, dated 09.09.2009 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Siddipet. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the husband of P.W.1. She stated that her husband committed suicide by consuming pesticide. The reason for committing suicide was that her deceased husband went to the water tank and when there was no water and the motor starter was locked, he abused the persons who had locked it. Two women Kundala Yadavva and Vemula Laxmi heard the deceased abusing and they in turn informed all the appellants who are caste elders. They conducted panchayat in the village and imposed fine of Rs.2,200/- on the deceased. Though, the amount was paid after six days, the appellants abused and harassed the deceased continuously for which reason he committed suicide. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased who stated that village elders imposed fine of Rs.30,000/- and stated that the appellants were responsible for the death of his son. P.W.3 the brother, P.W.4 another brother also stated that the deceased was fined for abusing the persons who had locked the water tank and the motor switch.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident is one of imposing a fine by the village elders for the reason of abusive conduct of the deceased. The said act of imposing a fine will not amount to abetting suicide as mentioned in Section 306 of IPC. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment in the case of; i) Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 SCCOnLineSC 737, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“10. In the judgment in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. this Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC. Paragraph 25 of the judgment reads as under :

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

4. In State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu and others, (2019) 10 SupremeCourtCases 188, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“12. In the judgment in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088 this Court has considered the scope of Section 306 and the ingredients which are essential for abetment as set out in Section 107 IPC. While interpreting the word “instigation”, it is held in para 20 as under : (SCC p. 629)

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the appellants being village el