The Kerala High Court has held that casual or angry words uttered during a quarrel, without the requisite criminal intent, do not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment came in a criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Sessions Court that had refused to discharge the petitioner and proposed to frame charges under Sections 306, relating to abetment of suicide, and 204, relating to destruction of documents to prevent their production in evidence. In the prosecution’s case, it was alleged that the petitioner was in a relationship with a woman who later took her own life. It was claimed that when the woman learned that the petitioner was about to marry another woman, she confronted him and he scolded her, allegedly telling her to “go away and die”. The prosecution asserted that this encounter mentally disturbed the deceased and that she subsequently committed suicide as a result of what was said to her.
In his petition before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the statement attributed to him was made in the heat of passion and was without any intention to abet or instigate the deceased to end her life. The counsel argued that even if the prosecution’s version of events were accepted, the essential ingredients of Section 306 were not made out, as there was no evidence of any intent on the part of the petitioner to encourage or urge the deceased to commit suicide. The court examined the statutory provisions, noting that Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines “abetment” as instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding someone to commit an offence, and that instigation involves not only words or acts but also the presence of mens rea, or criminal intent. In this context, the High Court relied on settled precedent which establishes that casual or angry remarks made in the course of a quarrel do not constitute instigation to commit suicide absent demonstrable intent. The court referred to earlier judicial authorities which held that even humiliating or abusive conduct, without clear evidence of intention to provoke suicide, cannot amount to abetment.
The High Court emphasized that what matters in determining the offence under Section 306 is the intention of the accused and not the subjective feelings or reactions of the deceased. The phrase “go away and die”, as alleged to have been uttered by the petitioner, was made amid a heated argument and, according to the court, lacked any deliberate intention on the part of the petitioner to incite the deceased to take her own life. The court observed that the prosecution had not led evidence to show that the petitioner’s words were intended to provoke or urge the deceased to commit suicide, or that his conduct had a direct and intentional causal link to her decision to end her life. In the absence of such evidence, the necessary mens rea for abetment was not established.
Having examined the legal principles and the facts of the case, the High Court held that the remarks attributed to the petitioner were made in the context of a quarrel and did not constitute instigation to commit suicide. Consequently, the court concluded that the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out on the basis of the allegations and material presented by the prosecution. In light of this finding, the High Court further held that the ancillary charge under Section 204 of the Indian Penal Code could not be sustained, as it was predicated on an offence that did not stand. With these observations, the High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge that had proposed to frame charges against the petitioner, allowed the criminal revision petition, and discharged the petitioner from the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code.
The judgment underscores that to constitute abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or intentional conduct that directly contributes to another person’s decision to commit suicide. Mere utterances made in anger or during an argument, without the requisite intention to incite suicide, do not fulfill the statutory requirements for abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The court’s decision reiterates that mens rea is an essential element in establishing criminal liability for abetment of suicide and that spontaneous outbursts in the heat of passion cannot be equated with deliberate instigation.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.