Summary
The appellant, a neighbour who had quarrelled with the deceased for about six months and allegedly abused and assaulted her two days and again on the day she set herself on fire, had her conviction under Section 306 IPC confirmed by the High Court, which acquitted her under the SC/ST Act. The Court set the conviction aside: taking the prosecution case at its highest, heated exchanges and even physical blows in a neighbourhood quarrel did not show the intention to abet suicide or an instigation of such a degree that the deceased was left with no option but to take her life.
Issues
- Whether, taking the prosecution case at its highest, the appellant's conduct towards the deceased amounted to abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC.
- Whether abusive words and physical blows exchanged in a neighbourhood quarrel per se constitute instigation within the meaning of Section 107 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 306 (abetment of suicide), Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction under Section 306 requires specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 with the intention of bringing about the suicide, and harassment of a kind that leaves the victim no alternative. The Court found that the quarrels between the neighbouring families, even assuming blows were struck, disclosed no such intention or instigation. (¶¶ 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24)
- Section 107 (abetment / instigation), Indian Penal Code, 1860Instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage; a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out, and a word uttered in a fit of anger without intending the consequence is not instigation (Ramesh Kumar, M. Mohan, Mahendra Awase). Applied to hold that the appellant's conduct was not instigation. (¶¶ 19, 21, 22, 23)
- Section 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The High Court had acquitted the appellant under this provision for want of sufficient evidence of caste-based abuse, and that acquittal, like the acquittals of the co-accused, had attained finality; the Court confined itself to the Section 306 IPC charge. (¶¶ 1, 11, 13)
Held
- Since the acquittals of the co-accused, of the appellant under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 and 506 read with 149 IPC, and under the SC/ST Act had attained finality with no appeal by the State, the only question was whether, taking the prosecution case at its highest, the conviction under Section 306 IPC could be sustained, that is, whether the overt acts attributed to the appellant left the victim no option except to commit suicide. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17)
- Casual words such as 'go and die' uttered in the heat of a quarrel do not reflect the mens rea required for Section 306 (Swamy Prahaladdas); the offence requires specific abetment under Section 107 with intention to bring about the suicide (Madan Mohan Singh); the harassment must leave the victim no alternative but to end her life (Amalendu Pal); and instigation requires a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence, so that words in anger without intending the consequence, or circumstances short of leaving the deceased with no other option, are not instigation (Ramesh Kumar, M. Mohan, Mahendra Awase). (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Neighbourhood quarrels are as old as community living. The evidence at its highest showed that the two families were at loggerheads for some months, with heated exchanges and alleged blows, but the appellant stood acquitted of causing hurt, intimidation and insult. Even assuming blows were administered, there was no intention to abet or cause any member of either family to take their own life, and no instigation of such an extent that the victim was left with no option but suicide; the appellant was therefore not guilty under Section 306. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, dated 27.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 3658 of 2011 set aside; appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC; bail bonds discharged.