Kerala High Court: Mere Allegation Of Humiliation, Harassment Or Threat Unaccompanied By Any Incitement Or Instigation Does Not Attract Offence Of Abetment Of Suicide
The Kerala High Court set aside the impugned Order, which allowed the addition of a charge under Section 306 of the IPC in a case initially registered for unnatural death.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court reiterated that mere allegation of humiliation, harassment or threat unaccompanied by any incitement or instigation does not attract the offence of abetment of suicide.
The Court set aside the impugned Order in a Petition challenging the said Order of the Judicial Magistrate, which allowed the addition of a charge under Section 306 of the IPC in a case initially registered for unnatural death, invoking power under Section 216 of the CrPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath explained, “The word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided in Clause (3) of Section 107 IPC (Section 45 of BNS). Under all three situations, an active or direct act which leads to the deceased committing suicide is essential to bring the offence under Section 306 IPC (Section 108 of BNS). The Supreme Court has consistently taken the view that in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC (Section 108 of BNS), there must be a case of suicide and the accused must have played an active role in the commission of suicide by an act of instigation or doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.”
Senior Advocate M.Ramesh Chander appeared for the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Sangeetha Raj represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was accused under Section 498A of the IPC. The de facto complainant, the mother-in-law of the petitioner, alleged that her daughter committed suicide by jumping into the well near the house where she was residing.
The complainant had filed a complaint against the Petitioner, his brother and his friends, alleging that the Petitioner subjected the deceased to cruelty, both physically and mentally, and on account of the said cruelty, she committed suicide.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted, “PW1 is the mother, PW2 is the brother, and PW3 is the father of the victim. All of them gave evidence that the accused No.3 in Annexure A1 complaint came to the house of the deceased, handed over a draft divorce agreement to PW2, who, in turn, handed it over to the deceased, who, after reading it, became upset and committed suicide three days thereafter. In paragraph 5 of Annexure A1 complaint, the allegation is that accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to the house of the deceased on 02.11.2005 and handed over a draft of an agreement for divorce and seeing this, the deceased was mentally shattered.”
“The trial court found in the impugned order that the averments in paragraph 5 of Annexure A1 and the evidence let in by PWs 1 to 3 mentioned above are sufficient to show that there was abetment of committing suicide by the petitioner. I cannot subscribe to the said finding,” the Bench held.
The Court stated, “There is no averment in Annexure A1 complaint or in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 that by handing over the Annexure A2 draft agreement for divorce, there was any instigation or intentional aiding or direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide by the petitioner. What was deposed by PWs 1 to 3 is that by reading Annexure A2 draft agreement, the deceased was mentally shattered, and she committed suicide three days thereafter. They did not state that the petitioner played any active role in either instigating or intentionally aiding the commission of suicide.”
“The prosecution has no case that the petitioner, through accused No.3 in Annexure A1 complaint, handed over the Annexure A2 draft agreement with the intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The alteration or addition of a charge must be for an offence that is made out by the evidence recorded during the trial before the Court. Though the power under S.216 Cr.P.C (Section239 of BNSS) to alter or add to the existing charge is very wide, to exercise the said power, there must be some material existing before the Court which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be added,” the Bench further explained.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable, and it is accordingly set aside. The Crl. M.C. stands allowed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: X v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:35619)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate M.Ramesh Chander; Advocates Aneesh Joseph and Dennis Varghese
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sangeetha Raj
