Partly allowed

Sakrappa S/O. Yamanappa Valmiki v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2024CRL.P/101014/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash cognizance for abetment of suicide after an accused abused and pushed the deceased during a quarrel over his missing daughter, who later died by suicide leaving a brief death note. The court held mere utterance of 'go and die' lacks mens rea for instigation, quashed Section 306 IPC proceedings, but continued trial under Sections 323 and 504 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner under Section 306 IPC in Crime No.37/2023 quashed; trial to continue for Sections 323 and 504 IPC.

Sakrappa S/O. Yamanappa Valmiki Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101014 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SAKRAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA VALMIKI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: KOTUMACHAGI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: GADAG – 582119.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION, GADAG, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD - 580009.

¶13

BHARATHI H M

¶14

2 . MAHMADARIF S/O. MAHAMADRAFIF HALAKERI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/AT: KOTUMACHAGI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: GADAG – 582119.

¶15

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT AND SRI. NEEL P PATEL. ADVS FOR R2)

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 04.11.2023 AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER ARISING OUT OF GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.37/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT: GADAG IN S.C. NO.90/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 323, 504, 306 OF IPC.

¶20

¶21

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶22

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.08.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

CAV ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’, for short) praying to quash the cognizance dated 04.11.2023 and further proceedings in S.C. No.90/2023 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short).

¶25

2. Facts in brief are as follows:

¶26

Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint stating that on 22.02.2023, the daughter of the petitioner left her house and she was missing and the petitioner has registered a complaint for kidnapping his daughter against unknown persons before the Gadag Rural Police Station in Crime No.33/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. The petitioner was suspecting that one Arif of complainant’s/respondent No.2 community had kidnapped his daughter and the complainant’s father namely Mohammad Rafiq has helped the said Arif in kidnapping the

¶27

¶28

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶29

petitioner’s daughter and the petitioner has become angry with them. On 11.03.2023 at 8:30am, the petitioner and others came to the chicken shop of complainant’s father and quarreled with the complainant’s father, abused him in filthy language, gave threat to his life, pushed him with hands and thereafter the complainant’s father under the shame of himself, on 12.03.2023 between 7:45am to 9:40am, hanged himself to the ceiling hook of the bedroom with the help of rope and died. Upon the said allegations, the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 has been registered in Crime No.37/2023 in Gadag Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 306 of IPC and the Sessions Court took cognizance and registered a case against the petitioner in S.C. No.90/2023.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that mere uttering the words “go and die” does not amount to abetment to commit suicide. On that point he placed reliance on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court

¶32

¶33

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶34

in the case of David D’souza v. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.4851/2022 decided on 22.04.2024. He contends that the words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be an instigation. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

¶35

of Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. The State of U.P¹ . Even in the death note found on the spot, it is only stated that the petitioner is the cause for death of the deceased and what was the reason and how this petitioner is the cause for the death of deceased has not been stated in the death note. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶36

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the statements of CWs.1 and 6 to 9 establish that the petitioner/accused has instigated the deceased asking him to “go and die” as he was the cause for kidnap of the daughter of the petitioner by a person belonging to his community. The death note found on the spot also contains that the petitioner is the cause for the

¶37

1 2024 INSC 172 = 2024 (3) SCR 157

¶38

¶39

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶40

death of the deceased. The charge-sheet material show prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. Therefore, there are no grounds for quashing the proceedings. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶41

I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

¶42

7. Since the entire issue springs from the complaint,

¶43

it is appropriate to quote the same for the purpose of quick

¶44

reference. It reads as follows:

¶45

“ …... ...

¶46

£ÀªÀÄÆäj£À ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà vÀAzÉ AiÀÄªÀÄ£À¥Àà ªÁ°äÃQ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ gÁeÉÃ±Àéj EªÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.02.2023 gÀAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉGEAzÁ PÁuÉAiÀÄVzÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ CªÀ¼À vÀAzÉ ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁuÉAiÀiÁVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ E®èªÉÃ AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÀÆ C¥ÀºÀgÀt ªÀiÁrgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ CAvÁ UÀzÀUÀ UÁæ«ÄÃt ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ w½¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C®èzÉÃ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆäj£À £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ DjÃ¥ï vÀAzÉ E¸Áä¬Ä¯ï ¸Á§ ¸ÀgÀPÀªÁ¸ï EªÀ£ÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£É CAvÁ ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà ªÁ°äÃQ EªÀ£ÀÄ C£ÀÄªÀiÁ£À¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ C®èzÉÃ DjÃ¥ï EªÀ¤UÉ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ gÁeÉÃ±Àéj EªÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÁ «£ÁPÁgÀt ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ¥ÀlÄÖ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹mÁÖVzÀÝ£ÀÄ, EzÉÃ «µÀAiÀÄªÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.03.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É 08.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁjUÉ ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà ªÁ°äÃQ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ §A¢zÀÝ EvÀgÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä aPÀ£ï CAUÀrAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄºÀäzÀgÀ¦üÃPï EªÀgÀ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ Nr ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ¤Ã£ÉÃ PÁgÀt £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ DjÃ¥ï EªÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ PÀ½¹PÉÆnÖÃ ¸ÀÆ¼ÉÃ ªÀÄUÀ£À ¤ªÀÄäAvÀªÀgÀÄ F ¨sÀÆ«Ä ªÀiÁå¯É EgÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ AiÀiÁPÁzÀgÀÆ fÃªÀ EnÖ¢ ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ CAvÁ ºÉÃ½ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr, CªÁZÀå ¨ÉÊzÁr £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ PÉÊ¬ÄAzÁ vÀ¼Áîr ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. EzÀjAzÁ £À£Àß

¶47

¶48

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶49

vÀAzÉ ªÀÄºÀäzÀgÀ¦üÃPï EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ CAvÁ ªÀiÁ£À¹ÃPÀªÁV vÀÄA¨Á £ÉÆA¢zÀÝ£ÀÄ. ... ... ”

¶50

On the aforesaid complaint, the police conduct investigation. The product of investigation is the filing of the charge-sheet. Column No.17 of the charge-sheet-the summary reads as follows:

¶51

“ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉÆ¼À¥ÀqÀÄªÀ UÀzÀUÀ UÁæ«ÄÃt ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ºÀ¢ÝAiÀÄ°è §gÀÄªÀ PÉÆlÄªÀÄZÀV UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæ PÁ®A £ÀA§gï 12 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦ ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà vÀAzÉ AiÀÄªÀÄ£À¥Àà ªÁ°äÃQ @ vÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ gÁeÉÃ±Àéj EªÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.02.2023 gÀAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÁ PÁuÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ CªÀ¼À vÀAzÉ DgÉÆÃ¦ ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁuÉAiÀiÁVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ E®èªÉÃ AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÀÆ C¥ÀºÀgÀt ªÀiÁrgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ CAvÁ UÀzÀUÀ UÁæ«ÄÃt ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ UÀzÀUÀ UÁæ«ÄÃ£À ¦.J¸ï. UÀÄ£Àß £ÀA§gï 33/2023 PÀ®A 363 L¦¹ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zsÁR¯ÁVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÉÃ «µÀAiÀÄªÁV DgÉÆÃ¦ ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄªÀÄZÀVAiÀÄ DjÃ¥ï vÀAzÉ E¸Áä¬Ä¯ï ¸Á§ ¸ÀgÀPÀªÁ¸ï EªÀ£ÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. DjÃ¥ï EªÀ¤UÉ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ gÁeÉÃ±Àéj EªÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄºÀäzÀgÀ¦üPï ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É CAvÁ «£ÁPÁgÀt ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄºÀäzÀgÀ¦üÃPï EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ¥ÀlÄÖ, CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹mÁÖVzÀÝ£ÀÄ, EzÉÃ «µÀAiÀÄªÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.03.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É 08.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁjUÉ DgÉÆÃ¦ ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà ªÁ°äÃQ @ vÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ EªÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄºÀäzÀgÀ¦üÃPï EªÀgÀ aPÀ£ï CAUÀrAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃV, ªÀÄºÀäzÀgÀ ¦üÃPï EªÀjUÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ Nr ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ¤Ã£ÉÃ PÁgÀt £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ DjÃ¥ï EªÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ PÀ½¹PÉÆnÖÃ ¸ÀÆ¼ÉÃ ªÀÄUÀ£À ¤ªÀÄäAvÀªÀgÀÄ F ¨sÀÆ«Ä ªÀiÁå¯É EgÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ AiÀiÁPÁzÀgÀÆ fÃªÀ EnÖ¢ ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ, CAvÁ ºÉÃ½ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr, CªÁZÀå ¨ÉÊzÁr ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄºÀäzÀgÀ¦üPÀß UÀqÀØªÀ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ dUÁÎr, PÉÊ¬ÄAzÁ vÀ¼Áîr ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁr, ¸ÁAiÀÄ®Ä ¥ÀæZÉÆÃzÀ£É PÉÆnÖzÀÝ£ÀÄ. EzÀjAzÁ ªÀÄºÀäzÀgÀ¦üÃPï vÀAzÉ gÁeÉÃ¸Á§ ºÁ¼ÀPÉÃj ªÀAiÀiÁ 48 ªÀµÀð EªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦ ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà£ÀÄ vÀ£ÀUÉ CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁr, F ¨sÀÆ«Ä ªÉÄÃ¯É EgÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ CAvÁ ºÉÃ½ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr ¸ÁAiÀÄ®Ä ¥ÀæZÉÆÃzÀ£É PÉÆlÖzÀÝPÉÌ, ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄºÀäzÀgÀ¦üÃPï EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.03.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É 07.45 UÀAmÉ¬ÄAzÁ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É 09.40 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀÄ«£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÉÆlÄªÀÄZÀV UÁæªÀÄzÀ PÀgÀrAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¥ÁèlzÀ°è vÀªÀÄä ºÉAqÀw gÉÊªÀiÁ£À©Ã EªÀgÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ºÉÆ¸ÀzÁV PÀnÖgÀÄªÀ D¹Û £ÀA§gÀ 14 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨Éqï gÀÆªÀÄß£À°è “£À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀt ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà vÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ” CAvÁ aÃnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉ¢lÄÖ, PÀ©âtzÀ ¹Ã°AUï ºÀÄQÌUÉ ºÀUÀÎ¢AzÁ PÀnÖ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ vÀÄ¢¬ÄAzÀ vÀ£Àß PÀÄwÛUÉUÉ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛ£É. PÁgÀt DgÉÆÃ¦ ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà vÀAzÉ AiÀÄªÀÄ£À¥Àà ªÀiÁ°äÃQ @ vÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀ®A-323, 504,

¶52

¶53

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶54

306 L¦¹ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

¶55

If the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 (supra) are perused, it is foundationed upon the statement allegedly made by the petitioner to the deceased at the time of incident. They could be hurling of abuses or the agony of a father being blunted out for the reason that the daughter of the petitioner is missing.

¶56

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

¶57

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 IPC. It reads as follows:

¶58

“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.”

¶59

Section 306 directs that whoever abets the commission

¶60

of suicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of

¶61

¶62

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶63

not less than ten years. Therefore, the soul of Section 306

¶64

of IPC is abetment. What is abetment is found in Section

¶65

107 of IPC. Section 107 of IPC reads as follows:

¶66

“ 107. Abetment of thing .-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

¶67

First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶68

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

¶69

Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

¶70

Explanation 1.-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of 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.”

¶71

Section 107 of IPC clearly mandates that if the accused intentionally aids any act against the victim which leads to the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC, then it would apply. Therefore, the crux of Section 107 of IPC is intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, what is required is intentional mind set 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 the principles for entertaining the

¶72

¶73

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶74

petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in cases where

¶75

abetment to suicide is the offence alleged.

¶76

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Arjuna

¶77

v. State² has held as under:

¶78

“8. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.”

¶79

11. In the case of Vedprakash Bhaiji v. State of M.P³ .

¶80

it is held as under:

¶81

“Where the prosecution case prima facie revealed that the accused persons intimidated and goaded the deceased that if he does not repay the loan advanced to him, he will have to face with dire consequences and immediately thereafter he committed suicide, it could not be said that the accused persons provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. A person is said to “instigate” another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word ‘instigate’ means to goad or urge forward to provoke, incite, urge encourage to do an act. The accused persons merely goaded him to refund or repay the amount advanced by them to him. They never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. On the other hand they wanted the loan advanced by them to the deceased to be repaid by him for the said purpose it was at least needed, if not essential, that deceased should live. There is no question of abetment by conspiracy. No aid was provided by the accused to commit suicide.

¶82

2 AIR 2019 SC 43

¶83

3 1995 Crl.L.J.893

¶84

10 -

¶85

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶86

It also cannot be said that deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. The deceased could have lodged a report against the said persons who had allegedly tortured him. Therefore, even accepting the prosecution case to be absolutely correct and true could not be said that a prima facie case for alleged commission of offence under S.306 read with S.34 is made out. The prosecution is liable to be quashed. S. 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked in such case.”

¶87

12. Learned High Court Government Pleader has

¶88

contended that the petitioner/accused telling the deceased to “go and die” amounts to abetment.

¶89

The petitioner-accused telling the deceased to go and die itself does not constitute the ingredient of instigation. In the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.⁴ it is held that the quarrel between the accused and deceased telling the deceased to go and die, that itself would not constitute ingredient of instigation. The presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation.

¶90

The petitioner/accused merely quarelling with the deceased, abusing him, asking him to die does not amount to abetment as there is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner/accused to drive out the deceased to commit suicide. The petitioner/accused should have the knowledge

¶91

4 2002 Crl.L.J. 2796

¶92

11 -

¶93

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶94

or intention that the deceased will commit suicide. On looking to the averments of the complaint and the statements of CWs.6to 12, there is no allegation that the petitioner/accused had the knowledge or intention to the effect that the deceased will commit suicide.

¶95

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu and others ,

¶96

Crl.A.No.2181/2009 has observed as under:

¶97

“16. The judgment relied on by learned counsel for the State in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2009 (16) SCC 605 this Court has held that where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation’ may be inferred. To draw the inference of instigation it all depends on facts and circumstances of the case, whether the acts committed by the accused will constitute direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide is a matter which is required to be considered in facts and circumstances of each case. As such we are of the view that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the State would not assist in supporting his arguments.”

¶98

Where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may be inferred. In the case on hand, there is no continued course of conduct of the petitioner/accused which created such circumstances that

¶99

12 -

¶100

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶101

the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.

¶102

A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.

¶103

The said aspect has been considered by the

¶104

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra (supra).

¶105

A man may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The same has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana⁵ .

¶106

A chit is found on the spot alleged to have contained the death note left by the deceased. The said death note contain only the words “£À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀt ¸ÀPÀæ¥Àà vÀ®ªÁgÀ”.

¶107

What was the reason for writing so, has not been stated in

¶108

5 AIR 2014 SC 178

¶109

13 -

¶110

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶111

the said death note. Even though there is allegation as averred in the complaint that the petitioner has suspected that the deceased is the cause for kidnap of daughter of the petitioner/accused by a person belonging to his caste but in the complaint filed by this petitioner/accused, there is no averment in that regard. Even though the charge-sheet has been filed for kidnap of the daughter of the petitioner/accused, there is no statement of this petitioner/accused that the deceased is the cause for kidnap of his daughter through a person belonging to his caste.

¶112

Considering a similar case, the Co-ordinate Bench

¶113

of this Court in the case of David D’souza (supra), has observed as under:

¶114

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.

¶115

14 -

¶116

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶117

22. The Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v.

¶118

State of U.P⁶ . has held as follows:

¶119

"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 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."

¶120

6 2023 SCC online SC 950

¶121

15 -

¶122

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶123

The Apex Court holds that the Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of 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 investigation.

¶124

In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court (supra) and on an analysis of the complaint and summary of the charge-sheet, this Court is of the considered view that permitting further proceedings for offence under Section 306 of IPC would undoubtedly lead the proceedings to become an abuse of 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 Lal⁷ has clearly held that such cases should be nipped in exercise of its jurisdiction

¶125

7 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335

¶126

16 -

¶127

Crl. P. No.101014/2024

¶128

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC requires to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶129

Apart from the said accusations of offence under Section 306 of IPC, there are other offences alleged against the petitioner/accused. They are Sections 323 and 504 of IPC. So far as those offences are concerned, there are statements of the complainant and CWs.6 to 12, who are eyewitnesses to the incident. The said witnesses have stated in their statements regarding the petitioner abusing the deceased in filthy language, pushing him and intimidating him in public. Therefore, the proceedings for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC requires to be continued against the petitioner.

¶130

26. In the result, the following

¶131

ORDER

¶132

The petition is allowed in part. The proceedings against

¶133

the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC in Gadag Rural Police Station Crime No.37/2023 are quashed. However, the proceedings against the

¶134