Supreme Court overturns conviction for abetment of suicide, upholds cruelty conviction: Kamlakar vs. State of Karnataka (2023) INSC 989

Date of the Judgment: 12 October 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 989

Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can marital discord alone lead to a conviction for abetment of suicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a husband was accused of both cruelty and abetment of suicide of his wife. The Court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently proved the charges under Section 498A (cruelty) and Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Vikram Nath authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves the death of a woman within four and a half years of her marriage to the appellant. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his parents subjected the deceased to cruelty, leading to her suicide. The deceased and the appellant resided in their matrimonial home along with the appellant’s parents. The prosecution claimed that after two years of marriage, the three accused started ill-treating and assaulting her for not bearing a child and for not doing household and agricultural work properly. The deceased had informed her father about the ill-treatment. The father had advised the accused not to ill-treat his daughter.

About two months before the incident, the appellant took the deceased to Bombay for 4-5 days and then left her at her parental home. Upon her return, the deceased informed her parents that the accused had assaulted her in Bombay. The father of the deceased requested the accused to take her back. The accused refused and told the father that they were going to remarry the appellant as they were not happy with the conduct of the deceased. The father informed his family, including the deceased, of the accused’s response.

On 04.09.1994, the deceased was alone at home when she poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. The prosecution alleged that this was a result of the harassment and mental cruelty from the accused persons. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on 06.09.1994. An FIR was lodged on 05.09.1994, under Section 498A of the IPC, which was later amended to include Section 306 of the IPC after her death.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted the appellant’s parents due to lack of evidence but convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 for the offence under Section 498A, and seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000 for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The High Court of Karnataka partly allowed the appellant’s appeal, upholding the conviction but reducing the sentence under Section 306 of the IPC to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section penalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. As per the source, “Cruelty” encompasses actions that could drive the woman to suicide or cause severe mental or physical harm, and harassment aimed at coercing her or her family into unlawful property or valuable security demands. The punishment can extend up to three years’ imprisonment and a possible fine.
• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with abetment of suicide. It states that “whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines abetment. It states that a person abets the doing of a thing if they:
  • Instigate any person to do that thing; or
  • Engage with one or more other 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
  • Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that for the two months prior to the incident, the deceased was residing at her parental home, and therefore, there was no opportunity for him to abet her suicide.
• He claimed that the allegation of cruelty was not supported by substantial proof.
• He also argued that he was convicted based on the same evidence that led to the acquittal of his parents.

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The prosecution contended that the deceased’s death occurred within seven years of her marriage, which raises a presumption of harassment.
• They argued that the appellant had assaulted and ill-treated the deceased, which was supported by witness testimonies (PW1 to PW3 and PW5).
• The prosecution maintained that the appellant’s actions and refusal to take the deceased back to their matrimonial home constituted cruelty and abetment to suicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 498A IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

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?

• Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618]: The Court used this case to define “instigation” and held that a word uttered in anger without intending the consequences is not instigation.
• M. Mohan v. State [(2011) 3 SCC 626]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that abetment requires a positive act to instigate or aid in committing suicide and a clear mens rea.
• Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707]: The Court used this case to highlight that mere harassment without a direct act of incitement is not sufficient for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of a direct link between the marital discord and the deceased’s suicide. While the Court acknowledged the cruelty inflicted upon the deceased, it found no evidence that the appellant had instigated or actively aided in her suicide. The Court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a clear act of abetment, which was absent in this case. The court was also influenced by the fact that the deceased was residing at her parental home for the two months before her suicide, indicating a lack of proximate link between the appellant’s actions and her death.

The Court’s reasoning was that while cruelty under Section 498A was established, the requirements for abetment of suicide under Section 306 were not met. The Court highlighted that mere harassment or marital discord is not sufficient for a conviction under Section 306; there must be a direct act of instigation or aid leading to the suicide. The Court found that the appellant’s actions, while constituting cruelty, did not directly lead to the deceased’s suicide. The Court also noted that the deceased was residing at her parental home for two months before the incident, further weakening the link between the appellant’s actions and her suicide.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as whether the cruelty itself could be considered an act of abetment. However, it rejected this interpretation, emphasizing the need for a direct link between the accused’s actions and the suicide. The Court reasoned that the deceased’s decision to end her life was not a direct consequence of any specific act by the appellant, but rather a result of the cumulative effect of the marital discord and her personal circumstances.

The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Vikram Nath, stated that “On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the instant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, there seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord between the deceased and the appellant and her subsequent death by burning herself.” The Court further noted that “The appellant has not committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased.” The Court concluded that “as the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have not been fulfilled in the case at hand, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.”

Key Takeaways

• Marital discord and cruelty do not automatically equate to abetment of suicide.
• For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a direct link between the accused’s actions and the suicide.
• Mere harassment or ill-treatment is not sufficient for a conviction under Section 306; there must be a positive act of instigation or aid.
• The prosecution must prove that the accused intended to push the deceased into such a position that they committed suicide.
• The court will look for a proximate link between the accused’s actions and the suicide, considering the time gap and circumstances.

Directions

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. The conviction and sentence under Section 306 of the IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of that charge. However, the conviction under Section 498A of the IPC was affirmed. The sentence under Section 498A was modified to the period already undergone, which was seven months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a direct and proximate link between the accused’s actions and the suicide. The court clarified that mere marital discord or cruelty is not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide. This judgment reinforces the principle that there must be a positive act of instigation or aid by the accused that directly leads to the suicide. This case does not change the position of law but clarifies the application of Section 306 in cases of marital discord and cruelty.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kamlakar vs. State of Karnataka clarifies the legal requirements for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC. While upholding the conviction for cruelty under Section 498A, the Court overturned the conviction for abetment of suicide, emphasizing the need for a direct link between the accused’s actions and the suicide. This ruling underscores that marital discord and cruelty alone are not enough to establish abetment of suicide, and there must be a positive act of instigation or aid by the accused.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Abetment of Suicide
• Cruelty
• Marital Offences

FAQ

Q: What is Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

A: Section 498A of the IPC penalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman, which can include actions that drive her to suicide or cause severe harm.

Q: What is Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

A: Section 306 of the IPC deals with abetment of suicide, which means encouraging or helping someone to commit suicide.

Q: What does abetment mean under Section 107 of the IPC?

A: Abetment means instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding someone to commit an act, including suicide.

Q: Can a person be convicted for abetment of suicide if they were cruel to the deceased?

A: Not necessarily. While cruelty is a factor, there must be a direct link between the accused’s actions and the suicide. Mere cruelty is not sufficient for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC.

Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?

A: The Supreme Court clarified that for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a positive act of instigation or aid by the accused that directly leads to the suicide. Marital discord and cruelty alone are not enough to establish abetment of suicide.

Q: What should I do if I am facing domestic violence or harassment?

A: If you are facing domestic violence or harassment, you should seek help immediately. You can contact the police, a women’s helpline, or a lawyer.