Refusal to marry not abetment to suicide
A person’s simple refusal to marry a lady would not amount to instigation to commit suicide, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Kamaruddin Dastagir v State of Karnataka [2024 INSC 908].
The broken relationships, while emotionally difficult, do not necessarily amount to abetment of suicide unless there is evidence of intent to commit a criminal act.
Instead, direct instigation is essential
Instead, it must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, to charge or convict a person, under Sections 417 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, the SC says.
Trial court acquitted but HC convicted
In this case the trial court acquitted the accused-appellant there was no evidence to suggest that the accused-appellant had instigated or aided the deceased in consuming poison and committing suicide.
But on appeal by the State of Karnataka, the High Court convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 417 and 306 IPC.
No allegation of instigation of consuming posison
There is no allegation by her that the accused-appellant had instigated her to consume poison or to commit suicide. No other evidence in this regard has been adduced.
SC says mens rea necessary in abetment
The SC says that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a particular thing and without the positive act on part of the accused there would be no instigation. It has also been observed that to convict a person for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, 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.
The judgements the SC relied on
The SC relied on Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh [ (2001) 9 SCC 618], M. Mohan v State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [ (2011) 3 SCC 626 ], and Prabhu v State represented by Inspector of Police & Anr [ 2024 SCC Online SC 137].
