Insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC; mens rea and direct action required for conviction.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned HCGP for the respondent – State.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking regular bail in Crime No.86/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 103 , 238, 49, 329(4), 75, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Naya Samhita (BNS).

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 30.07.2024, the first informant lodged a missing complaint alleging that in his house, he, his mother Kashavva, wife Manjula and three children were staying. On 29.07.2024 at 6.00 p.m., the first informant left the house to attend the death ceremony of a relative at Kalaghatagi and he returned around 09:30 p.m. and his wife was missing. Accordingly, they searched her here and there. Later, he came to know that as on the date, i.e., on 29.07.2024 at about 07:35 p.m., the mother of the first informant was in the house, the accused came to the bedroom of deceased Manjula and insisting her to have sexual intercourse with him and also insisting her to elope from the house by leaving the company of the first informant. He also abused Manjula in filthy language and abetted her to go and die. On 08.08.2024, the dead body of Manjula was traced near the canal of Kamalapur village and Devanur village. Therefore, the complaint was lodged and this led to registration of FIR and investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no allegation against the petitioner to attract the alleged offences. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life and the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. With these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the petition.

5. Learned HCGP for the respondent – State contended that there is prima facie case against the petitioner. The offences are non-bailable in nature. If he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Thus, he prayed for rejection of the petition.

6. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the first informant is none other than the husband of deceased Manjula. On 29.07.2024 at about 07:30 p.m., the accused entered the house of first informant, insisted the deceased Manjula to have sex with him, as she refused to have sex with him, he insisted her to elope with her and took her to perform her second marriage. As the deceased Manjula denied his proposal, he also abused her in filthy language and intentionally insulted her, provoked her by saying that ‘go and die else where’. As per the statement of CW9, Smt. Kashavva, the mother of the first informant and mother-in-law of deceased, who has stated before the learned Magistrate while recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Section 184(5) of BNSS), that the accused entered the house and that he was sleeping underneath the cot. But she has not stated before the Magistrate alleging that the accused abetted the deceased Manjula to commit suicide and she has not stated that the accused insulted her and abused the deceased by saying that ‘go and die elsewhere’.

7. On perusal of the charge sheet material, there is no nexus and proximity with conduct of the petitioner with that of suicide committed by the deceased. Admittedly, in order to attract Sect