Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6353
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
MAREGOUDA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA G – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 103887 of 2022
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to instigate, continuous harassment, and proximate provocation, which were absent in this case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 - Abetment of suicide - Allegations against the petitioner of harassment and instigation to commit suicide were found to lack sufficient evidence - Mere words such as 'go and die' do not constitute instigation without material evidence of undue pressure - Essential elements for abetment of suicide not satisfied. (Paras 5, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Legal principles - To establish an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be intention to instigate, a suicidal death, continuous harassment, and proximate provocation to the death. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Recovery Officer, was accused of pressuring the deceased to repay a loan, allegedly leading to the deceased's suicide after a period of harassment. (Para 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found no material evidence to substantiate the allegations of harassment or instigation, leading to the conclusion that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. (Paras 7, 10)
Issues: Whether the allegations against the petitioner constituted sufficient grounds for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the essential elements for abetment of suicide were absent, emphasizing the need for material evidence beyond mere allegations.
Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner, who is facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), has approached this Court challenging the criminal proceedings.
2. The prosecution alleges that the husband of the de facto complainant had borrowed a loan for the purchase of five cars. Although the deceased was regularly paying monthly installments, the petitioner allegedly abused him, pressured him to repay the loan, and repeatedly threatened to stage a sit-in protest outside his house. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the deceased was unable to repay the loan for a period of 6 to 8 months.
3. On 16.04.2021, the petitioner allegedly called the deceased over the telephone, pressured him to repay the loan amount, and told him that he should die. On the same day, the deceased returned home after consuming poison and informed his wife that he had done so due to the alleged harassment by the petitioner.
4. During the course of the investigation, the police recorded the statements of the deceased’s wife, brother, and two drivers under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even assuming the allegations to be true, they do not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC . In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Others, AIROnline 2020 SC 845 .
6. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 – State contended that the charge sheet materials clearly disclose that the petitioner, who was a Recovery Officer at Shriram Transport Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd., had pressured the deceased to repay the loan. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased committed suicide, thereby constituting an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC . He further submitted that the veracity of the allegations against the petitioner should be considered at the stage of trial and not in this petition and, accordingly, sought the dismissal of the petition.
7. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties, the following is observed:
The allegation against the petitioner, who was a Recovery Officer, is that he harassed the deceased to repay the loan and allegedly told him to “go and die” if he failed to make the payment. However, there is no material evidence to substantiate the claim that, on 16.04.2021, the petitioner called the deceased over the telephone and pressured him to repay the loan. Apart from the self-serving statements of interested witnesses, there is no independent material to establish that the petitioner exerted undue pressure on the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. , (2002) 5 SCC 371 , held that mere words uttered by the accused, such as “go and die,” are not prima facie sufficient to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC , the following essential elements must be satisfied:
i. There must be an intention on the part of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
ii. There must be a suicidal death and an act of abetment leading to it.
iii. There must be continuous harassment by the accused before the death.
iv. Such harassment or provocation must be proximate to the time of the deceased’s death.
9. In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873 , at para-23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
“23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is that there must be an allegation of either a direct or indirect act of incitement to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient unless there are specific acts by
