Justice BR Gavai & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
There Must Be Close Proximity Between Positive Act Of Instigation By Accused & Commission Of Suicide By Victim: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which quashed the FIR against the Respondents accused under Section 306 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim should be such as to create a clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide.
The Court upheld the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which quashed the FIR against the Respondents who were accused under Section 306 of the IPC. The High Court held that for an offence to be constituted under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a proximate and positive act to instigate in aiding suicide.
A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “We are, therefore, of the considered view that even taking the allegations at its face value, it cannot be said that the allegations would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide. In any case, there is no reasonable nexus between the period to which the allegations pertain and the date of death. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has erred in quashing the proceedings under Section 306 of IPC.”
Senior Advocate Shanthkumar V. Mahale represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The deceased was a partner in a construction company along with the Respondents. After the police conducted an inquest under Section 174 of the CrPC, an Unnatural Death Report was filed, and the case was closed. However, the Appellant filed an FIR stating that she had discovered a suicide note while cleaning her deceased husband’s wardrobe. The note allegedly revealed that the Respondents had cheated the deceased of Rs. 60 crore, forged his signatures on blank cheques and papers, and compelled him to mortgage his personal properties, using the funds for personal gain.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court referred to its decision in Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held, “The cardinal principle of the subject-matter at hand is that there must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim. The close proximity should be such as tocreate a clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide.”
The Bench remarked, “If the version of the appellant-complainant is to be accepted, the question remains as to why she kept silent from 14th April 2024 till 22nd May 2024. If her husband was upset a week before his death, whenever he received calls from respondent Nos.2 and 3 and if he was blackmailed by the said respondents, then nothing could prevent the appellant-complainant from reporting this matter to the police immediately after the deceased committed suicide. Thus, it is apparent from the material on record that all these allegations were an afterthought.”
Consequently, the Court held, “The impugned judgment…passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court…as it quashes the proceedings under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, is upheld.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: R Shashirekha v. State Of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 402)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Shanthkumar V. Mahale; AOR Nishant; Advocates Madhavendra Singh, Satish Doddamani and Adviteeya
Respondent: Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu; AOR D.L. Chidananda; Advocates CB Gururaj, Sai Shakti, Animesh Dubey, KP Singh and CB Tiwari