Karnataka High Court
Nandisha K vs State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9901 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
NANDISHA K.,
S/O KADIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/AT YELDUR, KOLAR
KARNATAKA - 563 138.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY AVALAHALLY P.S
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
signed by
NAGAVENI BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: High
Court of 2. KARUNAKARAN R.,
Karnataka
S/O SRI RAVICHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO. 134, DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
NEAR MAHESHWARI NAGAR
ANJANEYA TEMPLE, MAHADEVAPURA POST
BENGALURU - 560 048.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNNS)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.8089/2024 PURSUING TO CHARGE SHEET DATED
30.08.2024 ARISING OUT REGISTERED IN CR.NO.200/2024 OF
FIR DATED 14.06.2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
AVALAHALLY P.S., FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S/ 306 OF
IPC R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1960 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner – accused No.2 is at the doors of this Court
calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.8089/2024, pending
before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural
District, for the offences under Sections 306 r/w. 34 of the IPC,
arising out of Crime No.200/2024. The second respondent is
the complainant, the father of the victim.
2. Heard Sri Rajath, learned counsel for petitioner and
Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 – complainant though
served, has chosen to remain unrepresented.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. Unfolding of facts, are as follows:
The son of the second respondent gets married to
accused No.1 on 18.02.2024. The son and the daughter in-law
shift to a separate residence. The relationship between the two
soon began to sore after marriage and the husband generated
apprehension of the newly married wife to be having an affair
with the petitioner – accused No.2. The allegation in the
complaint is that, on the discovery of the affair of the wife with
the petitioner, she began to torture the son of the complainant,
whom she was married three months ago. Alleging that the
son – victim was tormented and tortured by his wife, at 1.20
a.m., i.e., 14.06.2024, commits suicide. He had hung himself
to the hook of the fan. The father of the son registers a
complaint against accused No1. and others and the complaint
becomes a crime in Crime No.200/2024, for the offences under
Section 306 r/w. 34 of the IPC. The police conduct
investigation, investigation leads to filing of a charge sheet and
the matter is now registered as C.C.No.8089/2024 for the
afore-quoted offences. Filing of the charge sheet is what has
driven the petitioner – accused No.2 to this Court in the subject
petition.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
4. The learned counsel for petitioner Sri Rajath, would
vehemently contend that none of the ingredients of Section 107
of the IPC, which defines abatement, for it to become an
offence under Section 306 of the IPC are present even to its
remotest sense against the petitioner – accused No.2. The only
allegation against the petitioner is that, the wife of the son
having relationship with the petitioner, lead the son of the
complainant committing suicide. He would contend that if
further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become
an abuse of the process of the law, as he is a stranger to the
entire episode of crime.
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would
contend that the complaint and the summary of the charge
sheet would undoubtedly point at the ingredients of the
offences of abatement to suicide and therefore, he would
contend that it is a matter of trial and all the accused must face
the trial and come out clean including the petitioner.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and have perused the material on record.
7. The aforesaid narrate facts, link in the chain of events
are all a matter of record. What has driven the petitioner to
this Court is filing of the charge sheet, retaining him as accused
No.2. The backdrop of the allegation is, accused No.1 gets
married to the son of the complainant and the marriage
happens on 18.02.2024. It soon transpires that the
relationship between the two, floundered, floundering of the
relationship has brought up squabble between the two. The
squabble is allegedly on account of the petitioner having an
affair with the wife of the deceased. On 14.06.2024, at about
1.20 a.m., the son of the complainant hangs himself to the
hook of the fan and commits suicide. No death note is left
behind. The alleged reason for committing suicide was for the
first time drawn in the complaint. Since the entire issue is now
triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice
the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
“To
The Police Inspector
Aavalahalli Police Station
Bengaluru DistrictFrom,
Karunakaran R
S/O Ravichandran
Age: 46 years
Naidu Caste
Cab Driver
No.134, Dr. Ambedkar nagar,
Near Maheshwari nagar.
Anjaneya Temple,
Mahadevapura Post
Bengaluru-560048Dear sir,
I am karunakaran staying at the above given
address. My son named Prasadh and his wife Uma
married on the date 18.02.2024, and both Prasadh and
Uma g shifted to rented house near Cheemasandra near
by ‘Sri Jnanagangotri International School’ on 02.05.2024
But from last 20 days my son had problems with his wife
as she had an affair with other person named Nandish
from Srinivaspura, Seegehalli. When my son Prasadh
came to know about her affair she mentally
tortured him and with her, her sister named Varsha
and the person Nandish has also blackmailed him
and tortured him he was very mentally affected by
sheer torture and blackmail.
Today at early morning by 1:20 am 14.06.2024
Varsha, Uma’s sister called and said that Prasadh as died
by hanging in his rented house at cheemasandra and
when we went to the spot at 1:45 am 14.06.2024. My
son’s body was layed down his wife uma, varsha, srinivas
(varsha’s husband), Shivu (varsha’s brother) was present
at the spot and we checked my son had died already. As
after investigating with house owner, they said, they
breaked opened the door and that my son was hanging
with a saree tied to the fan hook in the bedroon and in
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
front of owner all the people present at the spot uma,
varsha, srinivas and shivu untied him and layed prasadh’s
body on the floor. We have submitted my son’s
(prasadh’s) body to ‘East Point Hospital’ Bidarahalli. The
cause of my son’s death is due to the affair of uma
with nandish after the marriage, and the torture
and blackmail given to him by uma, varsha, nandish
after he got to know about their affair and we
registered a case in Aavalahalli Police station to
investigate this matter. After Discussing with my family
members I registered the complaint.
Your’s faithfully
R. Karunakaran”
(Emphasis added)
The narration in the complaint is that, the son’s death is due to
the affair of the wife with the petitioner; the torture and
blackmail by the wife after the son got to know about the
affair; the police conduct investigation and draw a charge sheet
against the petitioner and two others. The summary of the
charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows:
“17. ೇ ನ ಸಂ ಪ ಾ ಾಂಶ
ಘನ ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಾ ೆ ೇ ದ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಪ ವ” #ಾಲೂ%ಕು, ‘ದರಹ)*,
+ೋಬ), Dವಲಹ)* -.ೕ/ 0ಾ1ಾ ಸರಹದು2, 3ೕಮಸಂದ5 ಾ5ಮದ.% ಾಸ6ದ2 ಮೃತ
ಪ5 ಾ9 ರವರು ಈ ;ೋ<ಾ ೋಪ1ಾ ಪ=>ಯ.%ನ ಅಂಕಣ 12 ರ.% ನಮೂA ರುವ ಎ1
ರವ ೊಂA ೆ 6 ಾಹ ಾCದು2, ಇವರ 6 ಾಹದ ನಂತರ ಎ1 ಮತು ಎ2 ರವರು 6 ಾ+ೇತರ
ಸಂಬಂದವನುE ಇಟು> ೊಂGದ2 6Hಾರ ಮೃತ ಪ5 ಾ9 ರವ ೆ ೊ#ಾC ಈ ಬ ೆI ಮೃತ
ಪ5 ಾ9 ರವರು ಎ1, ಎ2 ಮತು ಎ3 ರವರನುE ೇ);ಾಗ ಎ1, ಎ2 ಮತು ಎ3 ರವರು ಮೃತ
ಪ5 ಾ9 ರವ ೆ ಏ ೋ;ೆ2ೕಶAಂದ Kೕನು ಸತ ೆ ಾವL ೆಮMA ಾCರು#ೇ ೆ ಎಂದು ಪ;ೇ
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
ಪ;ೇ +ೇ)ದ2 ಂದ ಮೃತ ಪ5 ಾ9 ರವರು A ಾಂಕ 13/06/2024 ರಂದು ಾN5 11:30
ಗಂOೆPಂದ A ಾಂಕ 14/06/2024 ರಂದು ೆಳCನ Qಾವ ಸುRಾರು 01:00 ಗಂOೆ ೆ
ಸಮಯದ.% #ಾನು ಾಸ ಾCದ2 ಮ ೆಯ ರೂಂ ನ.%, ೋS> +ಾT ೊಂಡು ೕ ೆPಂದ
Vಾ W ಹುX ೆ ೇಣು +ಾT ೊಂಡು ಮೃತಪ=>ರುವL;ಾC
ಮೃತಪ=>ರುವL;ಾC +ಾಗೂ ಮೃತನು ತನE ಾ6 ೆ ಎ1,
ಎ2 ಮತು ಎ3 ರವ ೇ ಾರಣ ಎಂದು ಾ 04 ರವ ೆ ಾYZ ಆ\ ] ೇ^ RಾGರುವL;ಾC
ತK_ೆPಂದ ದೃಡಪ=>ರು#ೆ.
ದೃಡಪ=>ರು#ೆ
ಆದ2 ಂದ ಆ ೋ ಗಳ 6ರುದ` ]ೕಲaಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ೕತ +ೊ ಸಲbಟ>
;ೋ<ಾ ೋಪ1ಾ ಪ=>.
K ೇದ ೆ :
ಪ5ಕರಣದ.% ಮೃತ ಪ5 ಾ9 ಮತು ಎ1 ರವರ c ೈS eೕW ಗಳ ಪ ೕfಾ
ವರAಯು ಎg.ಎ/.ಎS 6hಾಗAಂದ ಬರ ೇ ಾCದು2 ಸದ ಎg.ಎ/.ಎS ವರA ಬಂದ
ನಂತರ ಕಲಂ 173(8) .ಆi. . ಅGಯ.% ಘನ ಾ ಾಲಯ ೆa ಸ.% ೊಳ*jಾಗುವLದು.”
(Emphasis added)
Whether the allegations in the complaint and the
summary of the charge sheet would become the ingredients of
the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, is necessary to be
noticed and considered. Section 306 of the IPC deals with
abatement to suicide, it reads as follows:
“306. Abetment of suicide.–If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.”
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
Section 306 of the IPC defines abatement to commission
of suicide. What is abatement is found in Section 107 of the
IPC. Section 107 of the IPC reads as follows:
“107. Abetment of a thing.–A person abets the
doing of a thing, who–
First.–Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.–Engages with one or more other person
or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; orThirdly.–Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.–A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material
fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a
Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and
also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and
thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B
abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
Explanation 2.–Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates
the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
Interpretation of Section 107 of the IPC for it become an
offence under Section 306 of the IPC need not detain this Court
for long or delve deep into the matter.
8. The Apex Court in plethora of cases has interpreted
Section 107 of the IPC. I deem it appropriate to notice a few.
The Apex Court in the case of PRABHU V. STATE reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 137, has held as follows:
“18. In order to constitute ‘instigation’, it must
be shown that the accused had, by his acts or omission
or by a continued course of conduct, created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide. The words
uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the
consequence [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh,
(2001) 9 SCC 618, Paragraph 20].
19. Different individuals in the same situation
react and behave differently because of the personal
meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for
individual vulnerability to suicide. [Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009)
16 SCC 605, Paragraph 20]
20. There must be direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. The accused
must be shown to have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide [Amalendu Pal v. State of West
Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, Paragraph 12-14]
21. The accused must have intended or known
that the deceased would commit suicide because of his
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
actions or omissions [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of
Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628]
22. Applying the above yardstick to the facts of the
present case in question, even if we take the case as a whole
and test the prosecution case on a demurrer, it could not be
said that the actions of the accused instigated Kousalya to
take her life or that he conspired with others to ensure that
the person committed suicide or any act of the appellant or
omission instigated the deceased resulting in the suicide.
23. Broken relationships and heart breaks are
part of everyday life. It could not be said that the
appellant by breaking up the relationship with
Kousalya and by advising her to marry in accordance
with the advice of her parents, as he himself was
doing, had intended to abet the suicide of Kousalya.
Hence the offence under Section 306 is not made out.
24. In the teeth of the statement of the deceased
which led to the FIR, statement [dated 25.06.2019] and
revised statement [dated 04.07.2019] of her mother to
whom the deceased narrated the events leading to her
consuming the poison, the version of the father and the
three paternal uncles of the deceased do not inspire
confidence. While the father, in his statement dated
25.06.2019, had given a version identical to the deceased
and her mother, in his revised statement, dated 04.07.2019,
he states that the deceased purportedly told her mother that
the Appellant had told the deceased that he would be happy
only if she were to die. This is then repeated by the three
paternal uncles in their statements dated 04.07.2019. This
version of the father and the paternal uncles is far-fetched
since neither the deceased, nor the mother of the deceased
to whom the statement was made, or the maternal uncle and
aunt, who admitted the deceased at the hospital, have made
out such case.
(Emphasis supplied)
In the case of DAVID D’ SOUZA V. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE KAR 47, has
held as follows:
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
“12. Before embarking upon analysis of such
abetment on the facts obtaining in the case at hand qua
the complaint or the charge sheet, I deem it appropriate
to notice the law as laid down by the Apex Court from
time to time in identical circumstances. Before noticing
the judgments of the Apex court, I deem it appropriate
to notice Section 306 of the IPC. It reads as follows:
“306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 306 directs that whoever abets the
commission of suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years.
Therefore, the soul of Section 306 is abetment. What is
abetment is found in Section 107 of the IPC. Section 107
of the IPC reads as follows:
“107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets
the doing of a thing, who–
First.-Instigates any person to do that
thing; or
Secondly.-Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.-A person who, by willful
misrepresentation, or by willful concealment
of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 107 clearly mandates that if the accused
intentionally aids any act against the victim which
leads to the ingredients of Section 306, then it
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
would apply. Therefore, the crux of Section 107 is
intention of the accused should be to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
Therefore, what is required is intentional mindset
of the accused which would be mens rea. It must
be a positive act of the accused to instigate
commission of suicide. The Apex Court in plethora
of judgments rendered from time to time has laid
down principles for entertaining a petition under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. in cases where
abetment to suicide is the offence alleged.
13. The Apex Court in the case of SWAMY
PRAHALADDAS v. STATE OF M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC
438 has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
2. The impugned order of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh is in confirmation of the order of
the Court of Session, whereby, the appellant
herein, has been summoned to face trial for
offence under Section 306 IPC. The said order has
been passed in this background:
Sushila Bai, respondent, a married
woman, is alleged to have had two
paramours, one was the deceased and the
other is the appellant. It is alleged that there
was sexual jealousy between the two. The
deceased was a married man. The
prosecution alleges that Sushila Bai had
completely bewitched him but her heart was
with the appellant. On the morning of 13-6-
1992, all the three had a quarrel while
sharing their morning tea. During that
course, the appellant is said to have
remarked for the deceased to go and die. The
prosecution alleges that thereafter the
deceased went home in a dejected mood,
whereafter he committed suicide. The suicide
has been termed as the direct cause for the
treatment meted out to the deceased by the
appellant. It is Sushila Devi though, who
alone stands committed to the Court of
Session to face trial because of her
preferential treatment to the appellant.
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
3. At the time of framing of charge, the trial
court thought it appropriate to associate the
appellant herein as an accused because of the
words he uttered to the deceased. We think that
just on the basis of that utterance the Court of
Session was in error in summoning the appellant
to face trial. In the first place it is difficult, in the
facts and circumstances, to come to even a prima
facie view that what was uttered by the appellant
was enough to instigate the deceased to commit
suicide. Those words are casual in nature
which are often employed in the heat of the
moment between quarrelling people. Nothing
serious is expected to follow thereafter. The
said act does not reflect the requisite mens
rea on the assumption that these words
would be carried out in all events. Besides
the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the
pros and cons of the act by which he
ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said
that the suicide by the deceased was the
direct result of the words uttered by the
appellant. For these reasons, the error is
apparent requiring rectification. The appeal is
accordingly allowed. The orders of the High
Court and that of the Court of Session are
thus upset. The appellant need not face the
charge.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court considers an identical circumstance
where after a quarrel the accused is said to have
remarked to the deceased to go and die. The Apex Court
holds that mere utterance of the kind will not amount to
suicide. The Apex Court in SANJU v. STATE OF M.P.,
(2002) 5 SCC 371 was also considering a case where the
accused in the fit of anger uttered the words ‘go and die’.
The Apex Court holds as follows:
“…. …. ….
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both
the courts below have erroneously accepted the
prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased
is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
place on 25-7-1998 wherein it is alleged that
the appellant had used abusive language and
had reportedly told the deceased “to go and
die”. For this, courts relied on a statement of
Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased,
made under Section 161 CrPC when
reportedly the deceased, after coming back
from the house of the appellant, told him that
the appellant had humiliated him and abused
him with filthy words. The statement of
Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161
CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3 to this
appeal and going through the statement, we
find that he has not stated that the deceased
had told him that the appellant had asked
him “to go and die”. Even if we accept the
prosecution story that the appellant did tell
the deceased “to go and die”, that itself does
not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”.
The word “instigate” denotes incitement or
urging to do some drastic or inadvisable
action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of
mens rea, therefore, is the necessary
concomitant of instigation. It is common
knowledge that the words uttered in a
quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot
be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in
a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the
alleged abusive words, said to have been told
to the deceased were on 25-7-1998 ensued
by a quarrel. The deceased was found
hanging on 27-7-1998. Assuming that the
deceased had taken the abusive language
seriously, he had enough time in between to
think over and reflect and, therefore, it
cannot be said that the abusive language,
which had been used by the appellant on 25-7-
1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide.
Suicide by the deceased on 27-7-1998 is not
proximate to the abusive language uttered by the
appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that the
deceased committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would
itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result
of the quarrel taken place on 25-7-1998 when it is
alleged that the appellant had used the abusive
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
language and also told the deceased to go and die.
This fact had escaped notice of the courts below.
………
14. A plain reading of the suicide note
would clearly show that the deceased was in great
stress and depressed. One plausible reason could
be that the deceased was without any work or
avocation and at the same time indulged in
drinking as revealed from the statement of the
wife Smt Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated
man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly
suggest that such a note is not the handiwork of a
man with a sound mind and sense. Smt Neelam
Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement
under Section 161 CrPC before the investigation
officer. She stated that the deceased always
indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any
work. She also stated that on 26-7-1998 her
husband came to them in an inebriated condition
and was abusing her and other members of the
family. The prosecution story, if believed,
shows that the quarrel between the deceased
and the appellant had taken place on 25-7-
1998 and if the deceased came back to the
house again on 26-7-1998, it cannot be said
that the suicide by the deceased was the
direct result of the quarrel that had taken
place on 25-7-1998. Viewed from the
aforesaid circumstances independently, we
are clearly of the view that the ingredients of
“abetment” are totally absent in the instant
case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It
is in the statement of the wife that the
deceased always remained in a drunken
condition. It is common knowledge that
excessive drinking leads one to debauchery.
It clearly appeared, therefore, that the
deceased was a victim of his own conduct
unconnected with the quarrel that had
ensued on 25-7-1998 where the appellant is
stated to have used abusive language. Taking
the totality of materials on record and facts
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
and circumstances of the case into
consideration, it will lead to the irresistible
conclusion that it is the deceased and he
alone, and none else, is responsible for his
death.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court then considers the purport of
abetment and holds that it involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person to
suicide. The Apex Court in S.S. CHHEENA v. VIJAY
KUMAR MAHAJAN, (2010) 12 SCC 190 has held as
follows:
“…. …. ….
25. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of
the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the
legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by
this Court is clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option
and that act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide.
26.In the instant case, the deceased was
undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and differences which
happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity
of each individual differs from the other.
Different people behave differently in the same
situation.”
(Emphasis supplied)
A little later, in the case of AMALENDU PAL v. STATE
OF WEST BENGAL, (2010) 1 SCC 707 the Apex Court
holds as follows:
“…. …. ….
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken
the view that before holding an accused guilty of
an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must
scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances
of the case and also assess the evidence adduced
before it in order to find out whether the cruelty
and harassment meted out to the victim had left
the victim with no other alternative but to put an
end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that
in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must
be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to
the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation
of harassment without there being any positive
action proximate to the time of occurrence on the
part of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case
of suicide and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have abetted
the commission of suicide must have played an
active role by an act of instigation or by doing
certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the person
charged with the said offence must be proved and
established by the prosecution before he could be
convicted under Section 306 IPC.
14. The expression “abetment” has
been defined under Section 107 IPC which
we have already extracted above. A person is
said to abet the commission of suicide when
a person instigates any person to do that
thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do
anything as stated in clauses Secondly or
Thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC
provides that if the act abetted is committed
pursuant to and in consequence of abetment
then the offender is to be punished with the
punishment provided for the original offence.
Learned counsel for the respondent State,
however, clearly stated before us that it
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
would be a case where clause Thirdly of
Section 107 IPC only would be attracted.
According to him, a case of abetment of
suicide is made out as provided for under
Section 107 IPC.”
(Emphasis supplied)
A decade later, the Apex Court in the case of
GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB, (2020) 10
SCC 200 has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
13. Section 107 IPC defines “abetment” and in
this case, the following part of the section will bear
consideration:
“107. Abetment of a thing.-A person
abets the doing of a thing, who–
First.-Instigates any person to do that thing;
or
***
Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
14. The definition quoted above makes it clear
that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids
by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a
person can be said to have abetted in doing that
thing.
15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be
established. To prove the offence of abetment, as
specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to
commit a particular crime must be visible, to
determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea,
there has to be something on record to establish or
show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and
in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the
suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea
cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has
to be visible and conspicuous. However, what
transpires in the present matter is that both the
trial court as well as the High Court never
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
examined whether the appellant had the mens
rea for the crime he is held to have committed.
The conviction of the appellant by the trial court as
well as the High Court on the theory that the woman
with two young kids might have committed suicide
possibly because of the harassment faced by her in
the matrimonial house is not at all borne out by the
evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not
show that the wife was unhappy because of the
appellant and she was forced to take such a step on
his account.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN SHARMA v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737
holds as follows:
“…. …. ….
8. Having heard the learned counsel on both
sides, we have perused the impugned order [Kanchan
Sharma v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 6917]
and other material placed on record. Except the self-
serving statements of the complainant and other
witnesses stating that the deceased was in love with
the appellant, there is no other material to show that
the appellant was maintaining any relation with the
deceased. From the material placed on record it is
clear that on the date of incident on 4-5-2018 the
deceased went to the house of the appellant and
consumed poison by taking out from a small bottle
which he had carried in his pocket. Merely because he
consumed poison in front of the house of the
appellant, that itself will not indicate any relation of
the appellant with the deceased.
9. “Abetment” involves mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of
the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
no one can be convicted for offence under Section
306IPC. To proceed against any person for the
offence under Section 306IPC it requires an active act
or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide.
10. There is nothing on record to show that the
appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased
and further there is absolutely no material to allege
that the appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased
within the meaning of Section 306IPC.
11. Even with regard to offence alleged under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that
except vague and bald statement that the appellant
and other family members abused the deceased by
uttering casteist words but there is nothing on record
to show to attract any of the ingredients for the
alleged offence also.
12. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with the aspect of
abetment. In the said case this Court has opined that
there should be an intention to provoke, incite or
encourage the doing of an act by the accused.
Besides, the judgment also observed that each
person’s suicidability pattern is different from the
other and each person has his own idea of self-
esteem and self-respect. In the said judgment it is
held that it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket
formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each
case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts
and circumstances.
13. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.
[Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] in order to bring a case
within the purview of Section 306IPC this Court has
held as under : (SCC p. 712, paras 12-13)
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently
taken the view that before holding an accused
guilty of an offence under Section 306IPC, the
court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It is
also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide there must be
proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to
the commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without there being
any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led
or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not
sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306IPC there must be a
case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the person who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must have
played an active role by an act of instigation or
by doing certain act to facilitate the commission
of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by
the person charged with the said offence must
be proved and established by the prosecution
before he could be convicted under Section
306IPC.””
The Apex Court later in DAXABEN v. STATE OF
GUJARAT, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
8. Section 306 of the IPC reads:
“306. Abetment of suicide. -If any
person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
9. As argued by Ms. Shenoy, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents,
what is required to constitute alleged
abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the
IPC is that there must be an allegation of
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
either direct or indirect act of incitement to
the commission of the offence of suicide.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In its latest judgment rendered on March 1, 2024 the
Apex Court in the case of KUMAR v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 216 has held as
follows:
“…. …. ….
3. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant
was earlier residing in the house of the deceased as a
tenant though on the date of the incident he was
residing elsewhere as the term of the lease
agreement had expired. On 05.07.2000 at about 09 :
00 AM, the deceased was returning home after
dropping the children of her sister in the school. When
she had reached near the Canara Bank, the appellant
was waiting there and teased her to marry him. The
deceased refused to respond. Appellant threatened
her that if she did not agree to marry him, he would
destroy the family of her sisters, outrage their
modesty and would kill them. After she reached
home, she informed her sisters about the above
incident over telephone. Thereafter, she consumed
poison in the house. The neighbours saw through the
window of the house the deceased lying on the floor
in a painful condition. They got the door of the house
opened. The deceased was suffering from pain due to
consumption of poison. In the meanwhile, one of her
sisters and her husband came to the house. All of
them took the deceased to the Nirmala Devi Hospital
whereafter she was shifted to the Mission Hospital.
Ultimately, she died on 06.07.2000 at 07 : 30 PM.
………
60. In India attempt to commit suicide is
an offence under Section 309 IPC. This section
provides that whoever attempts to commit
suicide and does any act towards the
commission of such offence, he shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one year or with fine or
with both. But once the suicide is carried out
i.e., the offence is complete, then obviously such
– 24 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
a person would be beyond the reach of the law;
question of penalising him would not arise. In
such a case, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide would be penalised under Section
306 IPC. Section 306 IPC reads as under:
306. Abetment of suicide- if any
person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
61. Thus, as per Section 306 of IPC, if any person
commits suicide, then whoever abets the commission
of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
62. The crucial word in Section 306 of IPC is
‘abets’. ‘Abetment’ is defined in Section 107 of IPC.
Section 107 of IPC reads thus:
107. Abetment of a thing- A person
abets the doing of a thing, who–
First-Instigates any person to do that
thing; or
Secondly-Engages with one or more
other person or persons in any conspiracy
for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act
or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
– 25 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or
at the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission of
that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
63. From a reading of Section 107 IPC what is
deducible is that a person would be abetting the doing
of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing
or if he encourages with one or more person or
persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing or if he
intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission doing
of that thing. Explanation 1 clarifies that even if a
person by way of wilful misrepresentation or
concealment of a material fact which he is otherwise
bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures or
attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is
said to instigate the doing of that thing. Similarly, it is
clarified by way of Explanation-2 that whoever does
anything in order to facilitate the commission of an
act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the
act, is said to aid the doing of that act.
64. Suicide is distinguishable from homicide
inasmuch as it amounts to killing of self. This Court in M.
Mohan v. State1 went into the meaning of the word
suicide and held as under:
37. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere
defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning
and import is well known and requires no
explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means
“killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In
short, a person committing suicide must commit it
by himself, irrespective of the means employed by
him in achieving his object of killing himself.
65. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh2, this
Court delved into the meaning of the word ‘instigate’ or
‘instigation’ and held as under:
20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To
satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is
not necessary that actual words must be used to
that effect or what constitutes instigation must
– 26 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite
the consequence must be capable of being spelt
out. The present one is not a case where the
accused had by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide in which
case an instigation may have been inferred. A
word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation.
66. Thus, this Court held that to ‘instigate’
means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage
to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of
‘instigation’, it is not necessary that actual words
must be used to that effect or that the words or
act should necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. But, a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. Where the accused by
his act or omission or by his continued course of
conduct creates a situation that the deceased is
left with no other option except to commit suicide,
then instigation may be inferred. A word uttered in
a fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to
be instigation.
67. Again in the case of Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State3, this Court elaborated further
and observed that to constitute ‘instigation’, a
person who instigates another has to provoke,
incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by
the other by ‘goading’ or ‘urging forward’. This
Court held as follows:
17. Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a
person who instigates another has to
provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing
of an act by the other by “goading” or
“urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of
the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates
someone into action; provoke to action or
– 27 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
reaction” (see Concise Oxford English
Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying
somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford
Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th Edn.).
18. Similarly, “urge” means to advise
or try hard to persuade somebody to do
something or to make a person to move
more quickly and or in a particular direction,
especially by pushing or forcing such
person. Therefore, a person who instigates
another has to “goad” or “urge forward” the
latter with intention to provoke, incite or
encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
68. Thus, this Court has held that in order
to prove that the accused had abetted the
commission of suicide by a person, the following
has to be established:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or
annoying the deceased by words, deeds or
wilful omission or conduct which may even
be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted
or pushed or forced the deceased by his
deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct
to make the deceased move forward more
quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention
to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased
to commit suicide while acting in the
manner noted above. Undoubtedly,
presence of mens rea is the necessary
concomitant of instigation.
69. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of
West Bengal4, this Court after referring to some of
the previous decisions held that it has been the
consistent view that before holding an accused
guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the
court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to
– 28 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative to put an end to her life. It must be
borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment
of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect
act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Merely on the allegation of harassment without
there being any positive action proximate to the
time of occurrence on the part of the accused
which led or compelled the deceased to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC
would not be sustainable. Thereafter, this Court
held as under:
13. In order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a
case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the person who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must
have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the
person charged with the said offence must
be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC.
70. Similar is the view expressed by this
court in Ude Singh (supra).
71. In Rajesh v. State of Haryana5, this
Court after referring to Sections 306 and 107 of
the IPC held as follows:
9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC
is not sustainable on the allegation of
harassment without there being any positive
action proximate to the time of occurrence
on the part of the accused, which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide. In
order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of
suicide and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must
have played an active role by an act of
– 29 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
instigation or by doing certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the
person charged with the said offence must
be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC.
72. Reverting back to the decision in M.
Mohan (supra), this Court observed that abetment
would involve a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of
a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. Delineating the
intention of the legislature and having regard to
the ratio of the cases decided by this Court, it was
concluded that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea
to commit the offence. It would also require an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no other option and that
this act of the accused must have been intended
to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide.
73. Sounding a note of caution, this
Court in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal
observed that the court should be extremely
careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case as well as the
evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose
of finding whether the cruelty meted out to
the victim had in fact induced her to end her
life by committing suicide. If it transpires to
the court that the victim committing suicide
was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life quite
common to the society to which the victim
belonged and such petulance, discord and
differences were not expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced individual to commit
suicide, the conscience of the court should
not be satisfied for basing a finding that the
– 30 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
accused charged of abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty.
………
80. Human mind is an enigma. It is well
neigh impossible to unravel the mystery of
the human mind. There can be myriad
reasons for a man or a woman to commit or
attempt to commit suicide : it may be a case
of failure to achieve academic excellence,
oppressive environment in college or hostel,
particularly for students belonging to the
marginalized sections, joblessness, financial
difficulties, disappointment in love or
marriage, acute or chronic ailments,
depression, so on and so forth. Therefore, it
may not always be the case that someone
has to abet commission of suicide.
Circumstances surrounding the deceased in
which he finds himself are relevant.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the case of KUMAR (supra)
considers the entire spectrum of law and holds that
human mind is an enigma. There can be myriad reasons
for a man or woman or anyone to commit or attempt to
commit suicide. Circumstances surrounding the deceased
in which he finds himself is relevant.
14. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the
complaint, the summary of the charge sheet are all
considered on the touchstone of the principles laid down
by the Apex Court what would unmistakably emerge is
that the petitioner, the sole accused, husband of the lady
with whom the deceased Father had certain relationship
and had blunt out his anger and had uttered words ‘go
and hang yourself’ cannot mean that it would become
the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC for it to become
an offence under Section 306 of the IPC – abetment to
suicide. The complaint registered against the petitioner is
by the Circle Inspector. It is undoubtedly a well drafted
complaint to contend that it is the acts of the petitioner
threatening the Father, the Father has committed
suicide. The same goes with the summary of the charge
– 31 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
sheet. The Apex Court in the case of MAHMOOD ALI v.
STATE OF U.P, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 has held as
follows:
“13. At this stage, we would like to
observe something important. Whenever an
accused comes before the Court invoking
either the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings quashed essentially on
the ground that such proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted
with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the
Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with
care and a little more closely. We say so
because once the complainant decides to
proceed against the accused with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance,
etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all
the necessary pleadings. The complainant
would ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just
enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the
lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but
is empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the
– 32 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
initiation/registration of the case as well as
the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on
hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a
period of time. It is in the background of such
circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue
of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal
grudge as alleged.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that the Courts exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. or even
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India should read between the lines,
looking to attending circumstances, emerging from the
record and with due care and circumspection try to
analyze the complaint. The Apex Court further holds that
this Court need not restrict itself only to the stage of the
case, but is empowered to take into consideration,
overall circumstances leading to the initiation and
materials collected in the course of the investigation.
15. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex
Court (supra), and on an analysis of the well
crafted complaint and summary of the charge
sheet, this Court is of the considered view that
permitting further proceedings despite a charge
sheet being filed against the petitioner would
undoubtedly lead the proceeding to become an
abuse of the process of law, and result in patent
injustice. It is in these circumstances, the Apex
Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN
LAL, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has clearly held that
such cases should be nipped in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. The
reason for the deceased to commit suicide in the
case at hand may be myriad, one of which could be
the factum of him having illicit relationship with
the wife of the petitioner, despite being the Father
and Priest of a Church. It is trite that human mind
is an enigma and the task of unraveling the
mystery of human mind can never be
accomplished.
– 33 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
Again, in the case of ROHINI SUDARSHAN GANGURDE
V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 1701, the Apex Court has held as follows:
“8. Reading these sections together would
indicate that there must be either an instigation,
or an engagement or intentional aid to ‘doing of a
thing’. When we apply these three criteria to
Section 306, it means that the accused must have
encouraged the person to commit suicide or
engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage
the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed
to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit
suicide.
9. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010)
12 SCC 190 this court explained the concept of
abetment along with necessary ingredient for offence
under Section 306 of IPC as under:
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of
the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the
legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this
Court is clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It also requires an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide.”
10. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC
707 this court explained the parameters of Section 306
in following words:
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the
view that before holding an accused guilty of an
offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must
scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of
– 34 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
the case and also assess the evidence adduced before
it in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the
victim with no other alternative but to put an end to
her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission
of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to
the time of occurrence on the part of the accused
which led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case
of suicide and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have abetted
the commission of suicide must have played an
active role by an act of instigation or by doing
certain act to facilitate the commission of
suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the
person charged with the said offence must be
proved and established by the prosecution
before he could be convicted under Section 306
IPC.”
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,
(2001) 9 SCC 618 while explaining the meaning of
‘Instigation’, this court stated that:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy
the requirement of “instigation”, though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes “instigation” must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out.
Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by
a continued course of conduct, created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide, in which case,
an “instigation” may have to be inferred. A word
uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to
be instigation.”
12. These principles and necessary ingredients of
Section 306 and 107 of Penal Code, 1860 were
– 35 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
reiterated and summarized by this court in recent case
of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC
200.
13. After carefully considering the facts and
evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal
position established through statutory and judicial
pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no
proximate link between the marital dispute in the
marriage of deceased with appellant and the
commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to
collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations
against the appellant. The appellant has not played any
active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or
aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the
statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues
of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating
Officer during investigation suggest any kind of
instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of
suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of
suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time
prior to the commission of suicide by her husband.
14. Thus, none of the three essentials of Section
107 read with Section 306 IPC are existing.
(Emphasis supplied)
In the case of MAHENDRA AWASE V. STATE OF M.P.
reported in (2025) 4 SCC 801, the Apex Court has held as
follows:
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person
in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part
of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention
of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided
by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active
– 36 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024HC-KAR
act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide.
26. In the instant case, the deceased was
undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord
and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human
sensitivity of each individual differs from the other.
Different people behave differently in the same situation.
27. When we carefully scrutinize and critically
examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled
legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no
conviction can be legally sustained without any credible
evidence or material on record against the appellant. The
order of framing a charge under Section 306 IPC against
the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It
would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face
a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever.
Consequently, the order of framing charge under Section
306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all
proceedings pending against him are also set aside.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In terms of the law elucidated by the Apex Court, what
would unmistakably emerge is that, for an offence under
Section 306 of the IPC, instigation, goading, proximity and the
victim should be left with no choice, but to commit suicide,
while it may be an explanation that the wife should render as
she was the last person whom the husband was with. The
allegation against the petitioner is, alleged affair with the wife.
– 37 –
NC: 2025:KHC:21411
CRL.P No. 9901 of 2024
HC-KAR
Therefore, the petitioner cannot be alleged for the offence
under Section 306 of the IPC – abatement of suicide by the son
of the complainant. In that light, only against the petitioner,
the alleged paramour, if further proceedings are permitted to
continue, it would become an abuse of the process of the law
and results in patent injustice.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. The criminal petition is allowed.
b. The proceedings in C.C.No.8089/2024, pending before
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru
Rural District, stand quashed, qua the petitioner.
c. It is made clear that the observations made in the
course of the order for the purpose of the
consideration of the case of the petitioner, the same
shall not bind or influence the trial Court against any
other accused.
I.A.No.1/2024 stands disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGENVJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24CT:SS