Mere Harassment By Itself Not Sufficient To Find An Accused Guilty Of Abetment Of Suicide: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that mere harassment by itself is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused persons, challenging the Judgment of the Trial Court by which they were convicted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

A Single Bench of Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar observed, “As stated supra, it is a well established legal principle that, the presence of a clear mens rea that is the intention to abide by the Act is essential to prove the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Mere harassment by itself is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. In this case there was a quarrel with regard to the taking of the tap water. That means the prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take her own life. No such evidence is placed on record by the prosecution.”

The Bench added that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, it must be evident and explicitly discernible and without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.

Advocate Parashuram Ajjampura Lakshman appeared for the Appellants while HCGP M.R. Patil appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The accused persons (Appellants) were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act. It was alleged that in 2011, in furtherance of their common intention to assault the deceased (woman), first accused assaulted her with hand while she was drawing water from the tap, second accused assaulted her with hand stating as to why she assaulted his mother, and third accused assaulted a man when he went to rescue the deceased, with hand and caused simple injuries. Also, the third accused allegedly assaulted the deceased with a brick piece on her head and caused simple injuries.

It was further alleged that all the accused persons abused the deceased knowing fully well that she belonged to the ‘Soliga’ community and tried to outrage her modesty. Allegedly, they abetted deceased to commit suicide, stating that she should better die and as a result of the same, she went inside the house and closed the door and poured kerosene on herself. It was also alleged that she set her ablaze and subsequently died because of burn injuries. The Trial Court found the accused guilty under Sections 323, 324, 354, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act and acquitted them under Section 3(1)(x). Being aggrieved by this, they approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… when Section 306 read with 107 of IPC are attributed, time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court has interpreted these Sections that, to attract the offence of abetment to commit suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of a suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased.”

The Court reiterated that instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act and if the person who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.

“If these principles are applied to the present facts of the case, as observed above, the very instigation or provoking of the deceased to commit suicide is missing in this case. Except for the quarrel between deceased and accused persons, no such incident has taken place. Except for the evidence of PW2 there is no evidence at all. The other women so named in the examination-in-chief of PW1, have not supported the case of prosecution”, it further remarked.

The Court noted that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation and if it transpires to the Court that a victim who committed suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, it cannot be stated that such an offence is complete.

“Even if we accept the prosecution's story that these appellants did tell the deceased to go and die, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of instigation. … The word instigate denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. That means presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation, that is missing in this case”, it added.

The Court also observed that in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, the necessary ingredients contemplated under Section 107 of IPC regarding intentional instigation said to have been given by the accused persons to the deceased to commit suicide or intentional aid said to have been given by the accused persons to the deceased to commit suicide shall be established.

Conclusion

“In this case, there is absolutely no allegation as can be seen from the facts of the prosecution case that, it was accused have instigated or aided the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, as the ingredients of offence are missing in this case, except the evidence of PW2, there is no other evidence placed on record to prove that, really these accused persons are involved in the commission of the crime in the manner stated by this PW2. Therefore, in the absence of acceptable evidence led by the prosecution, there arises a doubt in the case of prosecution. The prosecution evidence is full of contradictions, omissions and discrepancies and especially evidence of PW2 is quite contradictory to the evidence of PW1 and PW4”, said the Court.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the prosecution is not able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and a doubt arises in the case of the prosecution and that benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal and acquitted the accused persons.

Cause Title- Lolamma & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:25507)

Click here to read/download the Judgment