Supreme Court overturns conviction for abetment of suicide in broken relationship case: Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka (2024) INSC 908 (29 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 29 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 908
Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a broken relationship and a refusal to marry lead to a conviction for abetment of suicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a young woman committed suicide after her partner refused to marry her. The court examined whether the accused’s actions constituted abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This judgment clarifies the legal standards for abetment of suicide in cases involving broken relationships. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan, with Justice Pankaj Mithal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a young woman named Suvarna, aged 21, who had been in a relationship with the accused, Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi, since she was 13 years old. The prosecution alleged that Kamaruddin had promised to marry Suvarna. However, about four months before the incident, he left their village and moved to Kakati, Karnataka. On 18th August 2007, Suvarna went to Kakati to meet Kamaruddin and asked him to marry her. When he refused, she consumed poison at the bus stand in Kakati on the morning of 19th August 2007, which she had brought with her from Gadhinglaj. She was taken to a hospital where she later died on the same day.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted Kamaruddin of all charges under Sections 417, 376, and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court reasoned that there was no evidence of sexual intercourse or instigation to commit suicide. The State of Karnataka appealed to the High Court, which reversed the trial court’s decision, convicting Kamaruddin under Sections 417 (cheating) and 306 (abetment of suicide) IPC, while maintaining the acquittal under Section 376 (rape) IPC. The High Court sentenced him to one year under Section 417 IPC and four years under Section 306 IPC. Subsequently, Kamaruddin appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for abetment of suicide. It states, “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 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines abetment. It states, “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.”

The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, it is essential to prove that the accused abetted the suicide, which involves instigation or intentionally aiding the commission of suicide. The court also stated that there has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused to abet such a crime and it requires an active act or a direct act leading to the commission of suicide.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant (Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi):

• There is no evidence to prove abetment of suicide or cheating on the part of the accused-appellant.

• The High Court was not justified in reversing the trial court’s decision of acquittal.

• The dying declarations of the deceased do not allege any physical relationship or instigation to commit suicide by the accused.

• The evidence does not prove that the accused was in love with the deceased or that he instigated her to commit suicide.

• The refusal to marry does not constitute abetment of suicide.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Karnataka):

• The accused had promised to marry the deceased before the village elders.

• The accused cheated the deceased by giving false assurance of marriage.

• The accused had physical relationship with the deceased and then refused to marry her, which led her to commit suicide.

• The accused’s actions led to the deceased’s suicide, thus constituting abetment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the accused abetted the suicide of the deceased under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s decision of acquittal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618* stating that words uttered in anger do not constitute mens rea for abetment of suicide.
• The Supreme Court followed M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626*, stating that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in committing suicide and that there must be a positive act to instigate or aid in committing suicide.
• The Supreme Court followed Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), [(2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367]* stating that there should be an intention to provoke, incite, or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
• The Supreme Court followed Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707* reiterating the principles of abetment of suicide.
• The Supreme Court followed Prabhu vs. State represented by Inspector of Police & Anr., 2024 SCC Online SC 137* stating that broken relationships and heartbreaks do not constitute abetment of suicide and that there must be acts or omissions creating circumstances where the deceased had no option but to commit suicide.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence of any positive act by the accused to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. The Court emphasized that a mere refusal to marry, even in the context of a broken relationship, does not constitute abetment of suicide. The Court noted that the deceased had a pre-determined plan to consume poison if the accused refused to marry her, indicating that her decision was not a direct result of any action by the accused.

Logical Reasoning:

The court reasoned that for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (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. The court found that the deceased’s decision to commit suicide was not a direct result of any action by the accused, but rather a consequence of her own pre-determined plan.

The court stated, “There is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused-appellant has in any way instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The accused-appellant on asking of the deceased had simply refused to marry her which is not a positive act on his part with any intention to abet the crime of suicide.”

The court also observed, “the deceased herself carried poison in a bottle from her village while going to Kakati, Karnataka with a predetermined mind to positively get an affirmation from the accused-appellant to marry her, failing which she would commit suicide.”

The court further added, “Even assuming, though there is no evidence that the accused-appellant promised to marry the deceased, that there was such a promise, it is again a simple case of a broken relationship for which there is a different cause of action, but not prosecution or conviction for an offence under Section 306, specially in the facts and circumstances of the case where no guilty intention or mens rea on the part of the accused-appellant had been established.”

Key Takeaways

• A mere refusal to marry, even in the context of a broken relationship, does not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• To establish abetment of suicide, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused to instigate or intentionally aid the deceased in committing suicide.
• The mental state of the deceased and their pre-determined intentions are crucial factors in determining whether abetment has occurred.
• Broken relationships and heartbreaks are part of everyday life and do not automatically constitute abetment of suicide.
• There must be a clear mens rea to commit the offence and it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and acquitted the accused-appellant, restoring the trial court’s decision.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a mere refusal to marry does not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This judgment reinforces the established legal position that abetment requires a positive act of instigation or intentional aiding, and that a broken relationship alone is not sufficient to establish abetment. This case clarifies that the mental state of the deceased and their pre-determined intentions are crucial factors in determining whether abetment has occurred. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka clarifies that a refusal to marry does not amount to abetment of suicide. The court emphasized the need for a positive act of instigation or intentional aiding to establish abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment underscores that broken relationships and heartbreaks do not automatically lead to criminal liability for abetment of suicide, and that the deceased’s mental state and pre-determined intentions are crucial factors.