Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court, wherein the High Court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections (Punishment for cheating) and (Abetment of suicide) of the (IPC), reversing the Trail Court’s acquittal order, the division bench of Pankaj Mithal* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. while setting aside the impugned conviction order, held that simply because the accused refused to marry the deceased did not equate to instigating, inciting, or provoking the deceased to take her own life. Therefore, the refusal by the accused to marry her, under these circumstances, did not amount to criminal liability for abetment of suicide.
Background:
A 21-year-old girl, had been in love with the accused for the past 8 years, starting when she was 13. It is alleged that the accused had promised to marry her, but when he later refused, she consumed poison and committed suicide.
The mother of the deceased lodged an FIR under Section read with Section , wherein the accused and his uncle, alleging that the accused had deceived her daughter, by promising to marry her and then refusing, which ultimately led to her suicide in frustration.
The accused was initially charged under Sections (cheating), (rape), and (abetment of suicide) of the . The Trial Court acquitted him of all the charges as there was no allegation in the dying declaration that the accused ever had any sexual intercourse with the deceased on the pretext of a promise to marry her or ever had any physical relationship with her. Her only allegation was that she consumed poison as he refused to marry her. There was no allegation that the accused instigated her to consume poison or to commit suicide.
However, upon appeal by the State of Karnataka, the High Court convicted him for the offences under Sections and . The acquittal under Section (rape) was upheld. The accused was sentenced to 1 year of imprisonment under Section with a fine of Rs. 5,000, and 4 years of imprisonment for the offence under Section with a fine of Rs. 20,000. Therefore, the conviction was limited to the charges of cheating and abetment of suicide.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the statement of mother of the deceased revealed that it was only the deceased who was in love with the accused and not the other way around. The deceased had impressed upon her mother to convince the accused to marry her as she was in love with him. The mother of the deceased nowhere stated that the accused was in love with her daughter. No other evidence was there to prove that any physical relationship was established by the accused with the deceased except that he had agreed to marry her before the panchayath, which was not proved.
The Court noted that the FIR alleges that after completing her BA, the deceased took admission for her MA at Gadhinglaj. Her mother later discovered that her daughter was in love with a Muslim boy, the accused from their village. The mother raised concerns about their relationship with respected members of the Muslim community, which led to a community meeting where both the accused and the deceased were present. During the meeting, both parties allegedly agreed to marry. However, the accused later cheated the deceased by giving a false promise of marriage, entering into a physical relationship with her, and then refusing to marry. This betrayal allegedly caused the deceased to consume poison, ultimately leading to her death.
After examining the two dying declarations, the Court concluded that neither of them contained any allegation of a physical relationship between the accused and the deceased. There was no mention that the accused had engaged in any sexual intercourse with the deceased under the pretext of marriage. The dying declarations clearly indicated that it was the deceased who was in love with the accused and wanted to marry him. When the accused left the village, it was the deceased who went after him. She called him, and upon meeting him, he refused to marry her. The Court observed that her sentiments were hurt by his rejection, which led her to consume poison, resulting in her death.
The Court noted that there was no allegation from the deceased that the accused had instigated her to consume poison or to commit suicide. No evidence was presented to support this claim. Even the mother of the deceased stated that it was the deceased who was in love with the accused and had wanted her mother to convince him to marry her. While the mother suggested that the deceased had entered into a physical relationship with the accused, this claim was not corroborated by any evidence, including the dying declarations.
There Court said that there was also no evidence to prove that the accused was in love with the deceased, nor was there any proof that they were in regular contact, despite allegations of phone conversations.
Therefore, the Court held that the evidence failed to prove that the accused had entered into any physical relationship with the deceased, had promised to marry her, or had instigated her to commit suicide by consuming poison.
After perusing Section 306 and Section of , the Court said that ‘instigation’ to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a person with abetment.
The Court reiterated that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a particular thing and without the positive act on part of the accused there would be no instigation. To convict a person for abetment of suicide under Section , there has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused to abet such a crime and it requires an active act or a direct act leading to the commission of suicide.
The Court highlighted that there is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused has in any way instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The accused on asking of the deceased had simply refused to marry her which is not a positive act on his part with any intention to abet the crime of suicide.
The Court concluded that even assuming there was a genuine relationship between the parties, the situation amounted to a broken relationship, which by itself did not constitute abetment to suicide. The Court observed that the accused had not provoked or instigated the deceased in any way to take her own life. It was noted that the deceased herself had brought poison from her village with a predetermined intention—she sought affirmation from the accused to marry her, and if he refused, she planned to commit suicide. The Court emphasized that simply because the accused refused to marry her did not equate to instigating, inciting, or provoking the deceased to take her own life. Therefore, the refusal by the accused to marry her, under these circumstances, did not amount to criminal liability for abetment of suicide.
The Court acknowledged that even if there was a promise made by the accused to marry the deceased—despite the lack of evidence to support this—it would still constitute a simple case of a broken relationship. Such a situation, the Court noted, would give rise to a different cause of action but would not justify prosecution or conviction for an offence under abetment of suicide.
In light of these findings, the Court concluded that the judgment and order of the High Court could not be sustained in law. Therefore, the High Court’s decision was set aside, and the accused was acquitted, as had been done by the Trial Court.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012 Appellants : Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Respondents : State of Karnataka | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Adv. Mr. Jyotish Pandey, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, A.A.G. Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kamran Khan, Adv. Ms. Gurbani Bhatia, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR. |
CORAM :
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .