To establish abetment of suicide, direct instigation or incitement must be demonstrated, showing clear mens rea, which was absent in this case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 324, 354, 306 read with Section 34 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(xi) - Conviction for abetment of suicide and other offences - The court found insufficient evidence to prove abetment, highlighting the need for direct instigation which must be clear and intentional. The prosecution relied primarily on testimonies that were contradictory. The Trial Court erred in conviction based on insufficient evidence. (Paras 53, 45, 49)

(B) Abetment of Suicide - Essential Ingredients - It must be established that the accused engaged in direct acts of instigation or incitement close to the occurrence of the suicide, revealing clear mens rea. Mere quarrels or disagreements do not amount to instigation necessary to establish liability for abetment. (Paras 45, 46)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for assault and abetting the suicide of the deceased Anitha following a quarrel over water drawing at a tap, leading to her suicide. The prosecution's claims were primarily based on PW2's testimony, described as inconsistent and insufficient.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the evidence presented was lacking in credibility and conviction, primarily relying on the sole testimony of one witness without adequate corroboration. It established that the prosecution did not prove the elements constituting abetment to suicide.

Issues: The main concerns included the sufficiency and consistency of evidence, the nature of the accused’s actions towards the deceased, and whether there was clear instigation for suicide.

Ratio Decidendi: The evidence suggested a quarrel, but lacked the necessary direct action or intent from the appellants to be considered as abetment of suicide. The critical legal point was that mere quarrels do not suffice to prove abetment; evidence must demonstrate instigation and intent.

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction set aside, and the appellants acquitted.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

Appellant Nos.1 to 3 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2012 and order on sentence dated 10.02.2012 passed in Special Case No.41/2011 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge under SC & ST(POA) Act 1989, Mysore, has preferred this appeal.

2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for convenience.

Factual matrix:

3. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were charge-sheeted by the Dy.S.P., Mysore Rural Sub-division for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 354, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST(POA) Act, 1989, alleging that, on 07.04.2011 at about 01.00 p.m., at Kadakola Village, all these three accused in furtherance of their common intention to assault deceased Anitha, accused No. 1 assaulted her with hand, while she was drawing water from the tap and accused No. 2 assaulted her with hand stating as to why she assaulted his mother and accused No. 3 assaulted PW2 when he went to rescue deceased Anitha, with hand and caused simple injuries. So also, this accused No. 3 assaulted deceased Anitha with a brick piece on her head and caused her simple injuries. All the accused persons abused deceased Anitha knowingly fully well that Anitha belongs to the 'Soliga' community and tried to outrage the modesty of deceased Anitha and all these accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, abetted deceased Anitha to commit suicide, stating, that she should better die and as a result of the same, Anitha went inside the house and closed the door and poured kerosene on herself and set her ablaze and subsequently she died because of these burn injuries. With these allegations, a complaint came to be filed as per Ex. P1 by the complainant, father of the deceased by name Ananda on 07.04.2011 itself, which was registered in Crime No. 131/2011 and the criminal law was set in motion.

4. The Investigation Officer, on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The Jurisdictional Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence, as the offence is trialed by the Sessions Court, the case stood committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

5. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences for which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses from PW1 to PW13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21 with respective signatures and also M.O. Nos. 1 to 5 and closed persecution evidence. On closure of the prosecution evidence, all the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so as to enable them to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. They denied their complicity in the crime and did not lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

7. On hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court found the accused guilty of committing the offences under Sections 323 , 324, 354, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST(POA) Act, 1989 and acquitted the accused persons for the offences under 3(1)(x) of SC & ST(POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced accused Nos. 1 to 3 as under: "Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC or in default, they should undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.

Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section of IPC or in default, they should undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months.

Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 354 r/w Section of IPC or in default, they should undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months.

Accused No.1 to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19172

To establish abetment of suicide, direct instigation or incitement must be demonstrated, showing clear mens rea, which was absent in this case.

Cases Referred (3)