S 306 IPC | Essence Of Offence Of Abetment Of Suicide Is Not What Deceased Felt, But What Accused Intended: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that the essence of the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended.
The court quashed proceedings of abetment of suicide against a wife holding that ordinary quarrels between spouses did not amount to instigation to commit suicide.
The Court explained that “quarrels, fights or disputes” in a marital relationship were not abnormal or uncommon and hence could not be reckoned as conduct amounting to abetment of suicide unless there was something more in the form of instigation or aiding.
A Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, “In order to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, the abetment must be for committing suicide and not for doing some other act. Unless the instigation is done with the intention to prod the other person to commit suicide, the offence under section 306 IPC read along with clause 'First” of section 107 IPC will not be attracted…the act alleged as instigation must have been done with the intention that the deceased had to commit suicide. Hence the essence of the offence of abetment of suicide is not what the deceased felt, but what the accused intended.”
Sr. Advocate C.C. Thomas represented the petitioner, while Sr. Advocates P. Vijaya Bhanu and Joseph Kodianthara appeared for the respondents.
After the husband had committed suicide by injecting poison, he left two suicide notes behind which stated that he took the extreme step alllegedly due to marital discord. The wife was consequently indicted for abetment of suicide of her husband under Section 306 of the IPC upon the allegation that bickerings and quarrels had a heavy toll on the emotional balance of the husband, resulting in his suicide.
However, the Court pointed out that “there is nothing to indicate any nexus between any act of the accused and the suicide of her husband, to term it as instigation.”
The Court clarified that a straightjacket formula cannot be adopted while dealing with cases of abetment of suicide.
“Unlike the wife in a marriage committing suicide, the husband’s suicide may stand on a different footing, especially after Section 113A and section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were incorporated, providing for certain presumptions. Therefore the yardstick while considering the case of abetment of suicide of a wife in a marriage can be different from that to be adopted when the husband had committed suicide,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution of the wife was “an abuse of the process of court” since the admitted allegations in the final report did not constitute the ingredients of the offence of Section 306 IPC.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Dr. Radhika Kapahtia v. State Of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:21953)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Sr. Advocate C.C. Thomas; Advocate Nireesh Mathew
Respondents: Sr. Advocates P. Vijaya Bhanu & Joseph Kodianthar; Advocate Aashique Akthar Hajjigothi; PP Ashi M.C.
