Supreme Court acquits accused in abetment to suicide case: Kumar @ Shiva Kumar vs. State of Karnataka (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 01 March 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 156

Judges: Bela M. Trivedi, J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a person be convicted for abetment of suicide based on mere allegations of harassment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused. This case underscores the importance of establishing a direct link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s decision to end their life. The Court emphasized that mere harassment is insufficient to prove abetment; there must be a clear act of instigation or aiding that directly leads to the suicide. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan, with Justice Bhuyan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of a young woman, referred to as ‘X’, who allegedly committed suicide due to harassment by the appellant, Kumar @ Shiva Kumar. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant, a former tenant in the deceased’s house, had been harassing her to marry him. On 05 July 2000, the deceased was allegedly teased and threatened by the appellant near Canara Bank, after which she returned home and consumed poison. The neighbors found her in distress and she was taken to Nirmala Devi Hospital and later shifted to Mission Hospital. She died on 06 July 2000. Her father, Raju, filed a police complaint on 07 July 2000, leading to the registration of a case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the appellant.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Fast Track Court – III Mysore, vide its judgment dated 06 July 2004, convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Karnataka, which dismissed the appeal on 17 September 2010, upholding the trial court’s conviction and sentence.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide. It states:

“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.”

The term ‘abetment’ is defined under Section 107 of the IPC:

“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.

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.”

Section 107 of the IPC clarifies that abetment includes instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding of an act. The court examined these provisions to determine whether the appellant’s actions constituted abetment of suicide.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the trial court and the High Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence.
• The appellant contended that the prosecution’s evidence was inconsistent and contradictory.
• It was submitted that there was no evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or aiding by the appellant that compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
• The appellant highlighted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the deceased’s family members (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-12).
• The appellant pointed out that the deceased had a partially healed injury, which was not explained by the prosecution, suggesting a prior suicidal tendency.
• The appellant questioned the delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and the non-disclosure of the alleged harassment by the deceased to anyone.
• The appellant argued that there was no reason for him to threaten the deceased, as he had married two months prior to the incident.
• The appellant relied on the cases of Ude Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 and Mahendra K.C. vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2022) 2 SCC 129.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the evidence on record clearly indicated the appellant’s guilt.
• The prosecution proved that the appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide beyond reasonable doubt.
• The respondent contended that the High Court rightly affirmed the conviction.
• The respondent submitted that conviction can be based on the testimony of the family members of the deceased.
• The respondent argued that the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, and PW-13 (the doctor) established the prosecution’s case.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was in highlighting the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s case, particularly the delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of corroborating evidence from neighbors, and the unexplained injury on the deceased’s wrist. The appellant also questioned the motive of the prosecution, given that the appellant was married two months before the incident.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue that the court addressed was:

✓ Whether the prosecution had successfully proven the charge of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 of the IPC against the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the meaning of suicide:

• M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 – The Supreme Court of India, defined suicide as an act of self-killing.

On the meaning of instigation:

• Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 – The Supreme Court of India, held that instigation means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. It also stated that a word uttered in a fit of anger without intending the consequences cannot be termed as instigation.
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State, (2009) 16 SCC 605 – The Supreme Court of India, elaborated that instigation requires a person to provoke, incite, urge, or encourage the doing of an act by goading or urging forward.

On the requirements for conviction under Section 306 IPC:

• Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 – The Supreme Court of India, held that there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide and that mere allegations of harassment are not sufficient.
• Ude Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 – The Supreme Court of India, reiterated that conviction under Section 306 IPC requires an active role by the accused in instigating or facilitating the suicide.
• Rajesh vs. State of Haryana, (2020) 15 SCC 359 – The Supreme Court of India, held that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on mere allegations of harassment without any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence.

On the need for caution in assessing evidence:

• State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 – The Supreme Court of India, cautioned that courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to determine if the cruelty meted out to the victim had induced her to commit suicide.

On the importance of recovery of trace of poison:

• A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Jaising P Modi – This book was cited as an authority on medical jurisprudence and toxicology, specifically regarding organophosphate compounds and their effects.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Abetment of suicide.
• Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Definition of abetment.
• Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Attempt to commit suicide.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the authorities to interpret the legal provisions and to establish the requirements for proving abetment of suicide. The Court used the precedents to emphasize the need for direct or indirect acts of incitement and the importance of establishing a clear mens rea. The Court also highlighted the need for caution in assessing the evidence and the importance of recovery of traces of poison in cases of death by poisoning.

• M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 – Cited to define suicide as an act of self-killing.
• Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 – Cited to define instigation and to clarify that words uttered in anger without intending consequences do not constitute instigation.
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State, (2009) 16 SCC 605 – Cited to further elaborate on the meaning of instigation, emphasizing the need for goading or urging forward.
• Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 – Cited to highlight the need for proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement and to clarify that mere allegations of harassment are not sufficient.
• Ude Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 – Cited to reiterate that conviction requires an active role by the accused in instigating or facilitating suicide.
• Rajesh vs. State of Haryana, (2020) 15 SCC 359 – Cited to emphasize that conviction is not sustainable on mere allegations of harassment without positive action proximate to the time of occurrence.
• State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 – Cited to caution that courts should be careful in assessing evidence to determine if cruelty induced the suicide.
• A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Jaising P Modi – Cited as an authority on medical jurisprudence and toxicology, specifically regarding organophosphate compounds and their effects.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence to prove abetment to suicide. The Court emphasized the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the absence of crucial material evidence like the container of the poison or the syringe. The Court also noted the lack of corroboration from independent witnesses and the unusual behavior of the deceased’s family members. The Court was not convinced that the prosecution had established a direct link between the appellant’s actions and the deceased’s decision to commit suicide.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual inconsistencies and omissions in the prosecution’s case. The court also considered the legal precedents and provisions but the facts weighed more in the mind of the court.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the deceased might have committed suicide due to reasons other than the alleged harassment. However, the court did not explicitly elaborate on these alternative interpretations. The final decision was reached after a careful assessment of all the evidence and the legal provisions, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of abetment to commit suicide beyond reasonable doubt.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The prosecution’s evidence was inconsistent and contradictory.
• There was a lack of evidence for instigation, conspiracy, or aiding by the appellant.
• There was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.
• There was non-recovery of the container or syringe.
• There was an unexplained injury on the deceased’s wrist.
• There was unusual behavior of the deceased’s family members.

The judgment was unanimous, with both Justices concurring on the acquittal of the appellant.

The judgment has potential implications for future cases involving abetment to suicide. It emphasizes the need for a direct link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s decision to commit suicide. It also highlights the importance of corroborating evidence and the need for a thorough investigation in such cases. The judgment clarifies that mere harassment is not sufficient to prove abetment; there must be a clear act of instigation or aiding that directly leads to the suicide.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing legal principles related to abetment of suicide. The court analyzed the arguments for and against the conviction, ultimately rejecting the prosecution’s case due to lack of evidence and inconsistencies.

“The evidence on record, as noted above, not only reveal glaring inconsistencies but also gaping holes in the version of the prosecution. That apart, there are material omissions too.”

“Thus on a conjoint reading of the entire materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC against the appellant.”

“The settled legal position, the evidence on record and the glaring omissions of the prosecution as pointed out above, leaves no room for doubt. We are therefore of the unhesitant view that the conviction of the appellant is wholly unsustainable.”

Key Takeaways

• Mere harassment is not sufficient to prove abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
• The prosecution must establish a direct link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s decision to commit suicide.
• Inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence can lead to acquittal.
• Delay in lodging the FIR and lack of corroborating evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• In cases of death by poisoning, the recovery of the poison container or syringe is crucial.

This judgment may lead to a more cautious approach by the courts in cases of abetment to suicide, ensuring that convictions are based on concrete evidence and not just allegations of harassment. It also emphasizes the need for thorough investigations by law enforcement agencies.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC. The judgment and order of the trial court dated 06.07.2004, as affirmed by the High Court vide the judgment and order dated 17.09.2010, were quashed. Since the appellant was already on bail, the bail bonds were discharged.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that to convict a person for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, mere allegations of harassment are not sufficient. The prosecution must prove a direct link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s decision to commit suicide, which includes active instigation or aiding. The judgment reinforces the existing legal principles related to abetment of suicide, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and a thorough investigation. There was no change in the previous position of law but the court reiterated the existing position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant in this case, emphasizing that a conviction for abetment to suicide requires more than just allegations of harassment. The prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the appellant’s actions and the deceased’s decision to end her life. The Court highlighted the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the lack of crucial material evidence. This judgment serves as a reminder of the need for concrete evidence and thorough investigation in cases of abetment to suicide.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Abetment to Suicide

Child Category: Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What does abetment of suicide mean under Indian law?

A: Abetment of suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), means that a person has instigated, conspired, or intentionally aided another person to commit suicide. This requires more than just general harassment; there must be a direct link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s decision to end their life.

Q: What is the difference between harassment and abetment of suicide?

A: Harassment involves actions that cause distress or annoyance, while abetment of suicide requires proof that the accused’s actions directly led to the deceased taking their life. Mere harassment is not enough to prove abetment of suicide.

Q: What kind of evidence is needed to prove abetment of suicide?

A: To prove abetment of suicide, the prosecution needs to show that the accused actively instigated, conspired, or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide. This includes evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement, not just allegations of harassment.

Q: What role does the timeline of events play in cases of abetment of suicide?

A: The timeline of events is crucial. A delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and inconsistencies in the sequence of events can raise doubts about the prosecution’s case. The actions of the accused must be proximate to the time of the suicide.

Q:What does the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kumar @ Shiva Kumar vs. State of Karnataka (2024) mean for future cases?

A: This judgment emphasizes the need for concrete evidence and a direct link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s decision to commit suicide. It clarifies that mere harassment is not sufficient to prove abetment, and it highlights the importance of thorough investigations and corroborating evidence. This may lead to a more cautious approach by courts in similar cases.

Q: What should one do if they feel harassed or are having suicidal thoughts?

A: If you are feeling harassed or having suicidal thoughts, it is important to seek help immediately. You can reach out to mental health professionals, helplines, or trusted friends and family members. Remember, you are not alone, and there is support available.