Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36829
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
SRI. MURULIDHARA R. @ KENCHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 4406 / 2023
SRI T.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE; SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding in the act of suicide, which was absent in this case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 107 - Abetment of suicide - The petitioner challenged proceedings for abetment of suicide following the death of the complainant's son, who consumed poison after alleged harassment. The court found no evidence of instigation or abetment by the petitioner, emphasizing that mere frustration or relationship issues do not constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC. (Paras 4, 6, 8, 16)
(B) Ingredients of Offence - The court reiterated that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding in the act of suicide, which was absent in this case. (Paras 10, 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The complainant's son, after being informed of his romantic interest's rejection, consumed poison and died. The petitioner was accused of instigating this act through harassment.
Findings of Court:
The court found no credible evidence linking the petitioner to the act of suicide, ruling that the charge sheet was quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner instigated the complainant's son to commit suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without evidence of instigation or direct involvement, the charge under Section 306 IPC could not stand.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed; charge sheet quashed.
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1368 of 2022 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura arising out of a crime in Crime No.98 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri T.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief adumbrated, are as follows:-
It is the case of the prosecution that on 19-06-2021 the 2nd respondent registers a complaint that her son one Dadapeer was working as a driver and had married a girl by name Shahaji and has a child from the wedlock. On 18-06-2021 at about 1.30 p.m. the petitioner has informed the complainant that her son keeps talking to a girl. During that time the son of the complainant comes to the house and goes out to buy some eggs but did not return. The complainant was informed that her son had consumed poison and had begun to vomit. He was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the consumption of poison at about 9.25 p.m. on the same night. It is further averred that the complainant comes to know that it is due to the harassment of the petitioner and accused No.2 that her son committed suicide. This becomes a crime in Crime No.98 of 2021. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the two accused. Filing of the charge sheet drove the petitioner/accused No.1 to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that consumption of poison by the son of the complainant has nothing to do with the instigation or abetment by the petitioner. The learned counsel would submit that the son of the complainant was in love with CW-11 for several years and CW-11 is said to have rejected the proposal of the son of the complainant to get married on the score that their religions were totally different. Thereafter, CW-11 gets married to another person. The learned counsel would submit that the son of the complainant did not stop but went on harassing CW-11 by making repeated calls to her. The frustration grew. When the petitioner informed the family members about the affair of CW-11 and the son of the complainant, it is that which is said to have triggered to the consumption of poison by the son of the complainant. He would submit that no where this can meet the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. He would seek quashment of proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Mohammed Tahir representing the complainant/2nd respondent though refutes the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, would admit the facts that led to commission of suicide by the son of the complainant since the affair did not fructify into any relationship legally on the score that CW-11 and the son of the complainant belong to different religion. Therefore, the collective frustration led to the son of the complainant consuming poison and killing himself. He would submit that it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial since the Police have filed the charge sheet.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would also toe the lines of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ complainant in contending that the Police have filed a charge sheet. In the light of the charge sheet being filed, the subject petition should not be entertained at this juncture and it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.98 of 2021 on the complaint so made by the 2nd respondent. The complaint reads as follows:
The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows:
The contents of the complaint and summary o
