In the case of Kamruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka, the accused-appellant was charged with offences under Sections 417, 376, and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to cheating, sexual assault, and abetment of suicide. The trial court initially acquitted him of all charges, but the High Court of Karnataka, upon an appeal by the state, convicted him for the offences of cheating (Section 417 IPC) and abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC), while maintaining the acquittal under Section 376 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to one year for cheating with a fine of Rs. 5,000, and four years for abetment of suicide, with an additional fine of Rs. 20,000.
Case Background:
The deceased, Suvarna, a 21-year-old girl, had been in love with the accused-appellant since the age of 13. They had been involved in a romantic relationship for approximately eight years. The core of the case revolves around the claim that the accused-appellant had promised to marry Suvarna but later reneged on this promise, leading her to take her own life. Suvarna, after a failed attempt to convince the accused to marry her in Kakati, consumed poison she had brought from Gadhinglaj. She was found unconscious at a bus stand and later died in the hospital.
The mother of the deceased filed a First Information Report (FIR), accusing the accused-appellant of deceiving her daughter, thereby causing her suicide. The case was investigated, and the chargesheet was framed against the accused-appellant for offences under Sections 417, 376, and 306 IPC.
Trial Court's Acquittal:
At trial, the court found no substantial evidence to prove that the accused-appellant had either engaged in any physical relationship with the deceased under the pretext of marriage or had instigated her to commit suicide. In fact, the dying declarations made by the deceased were inconsistent with the allegations of sexual assault and abetment of suicide. The statements revealed that the deceased had pursued the accused in an attempt to convince him to marry her, but when he refused, she decided to take her own life. Given the lack of any direct evidence linking the accused-appellant to the cause of her death, the trial court acquitted him.
Appeal and High Court's Conviction:
The State of Karnataka appealed the trial court's acquittal to the High Court. In its judgment, the High Court upheld the charge of cheating under Section 417 IPC, based on the promise made by the accused-appellant to marry Suvarna. It also convicted him under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, arguing that his refusal to marry the deceased led her to take the extreme step.
However, the High Court's conviction under Section 306 IPC was based on the assertion that the refusal to marry could be seen as instigating the deceased's suicide. This reasoning prompted the appeal by the accused-appellant to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court examined the facts of the case with respect to the legal principles related to abetment under Section 306 IPC. The Court reaffirmed the importance of 'instigation' in cases of abetment of suicide, highlighting that mere refusal to marry or a broken relationship, without any active provocation or encouragement to commit suicide, cannot amount to abetment.
The Court cited previous judgments, including Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and M. Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, to emphasize that broken relationships, emotional distress, or verbal statements, in the absence of instigation or encouragement to commit suicide, do not constitute the offence of abetment.
In this case, the Supreme Court found that the deceased had made a conscious decision to take her life after being refused marriage, carrying poison from her village with a predetermined mind to end her life if the refusal occurred. The Court concluded that there was no direct act by the accused-appellant that led to the suicide, and the facts did not support the conviction for abetment under Section 306 IPC.
Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the acquittal granted by the trial court.
Conclusion:
This case highlights the complexity of legal proceedings in cases of suicide and the specific requirements under Indian law for convicting someone for abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court's decision clarifies that emotional distress or a broken relationship, without any active incitement or encouragement, cannot be construed as abetment. The verdict serves as a significant reminder of the necessity for concrete evidence to prove 'mens rea' (guilty mind) and instigation in cases related to suicide.
Section 306., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 376., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 417., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860
