Criminal petition filed to quash prosecution for abetment to suicide and insulting words. Court held no material showed intention to instigate suicide and proceedings quashed as abuse of process.
Prosecution of petitioners accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.73/2020 is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2235 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. B.V.MANJE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.73/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MALAVALLI, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 306 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.73/2020 pending trial before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli, Mandya (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 306 read
NC: 2023:KHC:37900 CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021
with Section 34 of IPC, have filed this petition to quash the entire proceedings.
NC: 2023:KHC:37900 CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021
the petitioners of abetting the suicide of Rajarathna. Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.117/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and took up investigation.
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court.
Rajarathna. Learned counsel further contended that the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Trial Court had taken cognizance and the Trial Court did not apply its mind before taking cognizance.
the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:-
other hand submitted that it was the petitioners who compelled Rajarathna to commit suicide, which is evident from the
statements of the respondent No.2 and other witnesses. He therefore, contended that an offence under Section 306 of IPC was made out.
NC: 2023:KHC:37900 CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021
would constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC. It is relevant to note that after the petitioners allegedly visited the respondent No.2 on 08.10.2019, the respondent No.2 is stated
to have informed this to the deceased - Rajarathna on 24.10.2019. On the same day, Rajarathna had consumed poison and he was shifted to the hospital on the same day. However, he did not record any statement before the Medical Officer or before any of his relatives, accusing that the petitioners compelled him to commit suicide. The said Rajarathna died on 15.12.2019. For an offence under Section 306 of IPC, it is necessary that there must be an apparent intention on the part of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. To "abet" as defined under Section 108 of IPC is to instigate the commission of any offence with an intention and knowledge that such abetment would result in the death of the deceased.
"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 language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below."
Sd/JUDGE
PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
3 issues framed by the court
Whether utterances made by petitioners demanding share in property and abusing respondent constituted abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Whether there was material to show apparent intention on part of accused to instigate deceased to commit suicide.
Whether prosecution of petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law for which proceedings must be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P.Followed¶53
Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371] · Who else cites this
Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and anotherReferred¶37
Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and another [2021 SCC Online SC 873] · Who else cites this
Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anotherReferred¶37
Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [2021 SCC Online SC 737] · Who else cites this
Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and anotherReferred¶37
Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and another [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
DR. R. RADHAKRISHNA
SHOBHA RANI
SMT. B.R. PADVATHAMMA
SMT. B.R. NIRMALA DEVI
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
