To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or proximity, along with mens rea.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is sole accused in Crime No.71/2016, he is before this Court calling in question the registration of the crime in crime No.71/2024 and the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.195/2022. The second respondent is the complainant. The allegation in the complaint is that the husband of the complainant had been working in a Sri Annapoorneshwari temple, Horanadu for over 25 years and was receiving monthly salary. The husband of the complainant and her son is said to have approached one Sri. Ramanarayana Joshi and requested to set up a service station. Sri. Ramanarayana Joshi is said to have told them that the service station was not required, but suggested setting up of a shop instead. The husband of the complainant then opens a shop near the temple.

2. On 10.05.2016, the allegation is that the petitioner calls and questions the complainant's husband, as to who has authorized or permitted him to open the shop and is said to have hurled certain abuses in filthy language, this happens on 10.05.2016. The second respondent along with the husband and son go to the house of Sri. Ramanarayana Joshi and after half an hour, the second respondent returns home distressed and when the petitioner enquired with the second respondent, he is said to have scolded him by using the words ‘Boli Maga’ and asked him to remove the shop immediately. After about 19 days of the alleged conversation, the complainant's husband is said to have consumed poison, resulting in his death. Upon the death, a complaint comes to be registered before the jurisdictional Police by the complainant, which becomes a crime in Crime No.71/2016 for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC ' for short). The Police after investigation filed a 'B' report in the case at hand on the score that the death was due to misunderstanding, neither the petitioner nor his father was responsible for the death. The complainant contested the 'B' report. The learned Magistrate, notwithstanding the complainant's protest, accepted the 'B' report and closed the case. This is called in question by the complainant in Crl.R.P.No.195/2022. The learned Sessions Judge allows the revision petition and on the score that the learned Magistrate had not followed the principles laid down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court inRAVIKUMAR Vs. MRS. K.M.C. VASANTHA and another reported inILR 2018 KAR 1725, it is this that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri. P.N. Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

4. Sri. P.N. Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend the necessary ingredients as obtaining under Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the , is absent in the case at hand. He would contend that there is neither proximity, nor goading, nor instigation by the petitioner. The Police had appropriately filed the 'B' report. The learned counsel further submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by plethora of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, as the death in the case at hand has happened 19 days after the alleged conversation, therefore there is no immediate proximity by any act of the petitioner, prior to the death.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant, though served in the year 2024 itself, has remained absent. Therefore, the State is heard.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the Police after investigation had filed a 'B' report and they would support the 'B' report so filed, as there was no instigation, no goading and there cann