Published on 14th February 2025
Authored By: Ojaswi Chandrakar
Bharati Vidyapeeth, New Law College, Pune
Introduction
This case revolves around, whether a mere refusal to marry would amount to abetment to suicide or not. Supreme court on deciding this case, explain and identifies the important ingredient which together constitute abetment to suicide under section 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), [2]which has now been replaced by section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)[3]. The supreme court overruled the impugned order given by Karnataka High Court, that convicted the appellant, Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi on ground that mere refusal to marry by one partner would amount to abetment to suicide and cheating, with imprisonment of 5 years. This judgement lays down the important ingredient for abetment to suicide.
Name of judges– Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Date of Judgement– 29 November, 2024
Facts of the Case
The appellant Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi was in a relationship for 8 years with a 21-year-old girl named Suvarna. Appellant promised to marry Suvarna but left the village and started to live in another village. When she went to the village where accused was residing, and asked him to marry her, he refused. Then, she committed suicide by consuming poison.
After which, deceased’s mother filed an FIR claiming that the appellant had made false promise of marriage to her daughter and has also deceived her, which ultimately resulted her to commit suicide. The FIR was filed under Section 417 (Punishment for Cheating) and Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) of IPC.
The district court, acquitted the appellant of both the charges, but when an appeal was filed by the deceased’s mother in the High Court of Karnataka. Karnataka High Court convicted appellant of both the charges of abetment to suicide and cheating which is covered in section 306 and 417 of IPC respectively. With the imprisonment of 5 years and fine.
After which, an appeal was filed by the appellant Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi in the Supreme Court.
Issues of the Case
- Whether the appellant’s act would amount to abetment to suicide under section 306 of IPC?
- Whether the appellant can be held liable for cheating under section 417 of IPC?
- Whether the imprisonment of 5 years given to the appellant is justified?
- Whether the judgement given by Karnataka High Court of conviction of the appellant is justified?
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that the judgement of the High Court should be set aside and upheld the judgement of District Court correct and fair. The appellant Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi was given acquittal by the Supreme Court for the charges of abetment to suicide. The Court while giving the judgement concluded that merely refusing a person to marry does not lead to abetment to suicide, especially where there is no proper evidence as to instigation and mens rea. The appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court.
Court’s Reasoning for the Judgement
For Abetment of Suicide
The Court laid down and explains the essential requirement as to claim for abetment of Suicide. The first one is the instigation, in easy word can be said as provoking. And the second one is mens rea, which is guilty mind in simple words.
The Supreme Court highlighted as to the legal definition of abetment given under section 107 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is now given in Section 45 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). “A person is said to abets the doing of a thing, who first- Instigates any person to do that thing, Second- To intentionally aiding the person to commit the act.
Instigation- The Court said that instigation means to provoking, encouraging or inciting a person to commit an act or to persuade them do a particular act with a particular way or direction.
Mens Rea- The Court said that mens rea, that is, guilty mind or guilty intention is an essential requirement for the offence of abetment to suicide.
To prove abetment to suicide, the accused must have a clear intention to make the deceased to have made to commit suicide. This intention must be fully linked to positive act or any act which led the deceased believe that the only option left for them is suicide.
Court held that a mere refusal to marry does not amount as to instigation for suicide, and does not satisfy the legal threshold for abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC. For the evidence presented by the respondent does not prove that any instigation or provocation by the appellant could have led the respondent to commit drastic step of suicide. The Court summarises that without particular act or statement of appellant that could directly initiate the deceased to commit suicide, the appellant cannot be held liable.
Analysis of the Evidence
The Supreme Court analysed the dying declaration made by the deceased. Which shows no indication of physical relationship between the appellant and the deceased. Also, the Court found no evidence as to support the claim that the appellant has promised to marry the deceased. Also, the poison taken by the deceased from the village was a pre-planned decision and not the impulsive rection taken by the deceased on the account of refusal from the appellant, thus indicating that the action taken by the deceased does not amount to appellant’s behaviour.
Precedents
In, the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh[4], the word spoken or uttered in the heated argument or given in the heat of the moment, without the intention to initiate suicide, does not lead to abetment to suicide.
In the case of, M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police[5], the Court explains the important elements as to abetment to suicide, that there is clear mens rea (guilty mind) and a direct act which led to suicide.
For the principle laid down in the above two cases, the Court observed that it was the girl who pursued the appellant, by travelling to his location and asking him to seek out. The Court concluded that, even if the appellant has promised to marry the deceased before, and refuses to marry afterwards, it was merely a case of broken relationship and not of abetment to suicide.
In the case of, Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State of Delhi[6], the Court discussed the meaning and definition of “instigation” and the importance of positive and negative actions leading to suicide.
In the case of, Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [7]and Prabhu v. State represented by Inspector of Police & Anr.,[8] the Court reinforced that the mere breakdown of relationship or refusal to marry without direct instigation does not amount to abetment.
The above all the precedents collectively helped to give the above judgement in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka by the Supreme Court.
Legal Reasoning
The legal reasoning given by the Supreme Court for strengthing the requirement for abetment of suicide under section 307 of IPC. The Court held that-
- Abetment requires Instigation- Instigation that involves intentionally provoking another to commit suicide. Refusal to marry without evidence, does not satisfy the condition as to instigation for abetment of suicide.
- Mens rea is essential- There must be mens rea, that is, guilty mind or guilty intention for the act of suicide.
- Direct Act needed- A direct or positive act must be done leading directly to commission of suicide. Coincidental events do not amount to abetment to suicide.
In this case, the Supreme Court found that refusal to marry by the appellant did not amount to instigation. The action taken by the deceased of suicide is the result of her own mental trauma, without any direct encouragement from the appellant. Thus, the appellant was convicted by all the charges by Supreme Court.
Conclusion
In short, this case is about, A women died by suicide who was in a relationship, and the Karnataka High Court convicted the man for abetment of suicide, with imprisonment of 5 years. Unhappy with the High Court’s decision, the man files an appeal in the Supreme Court. To which Supreme Court said that, this is the case of broken relationship and not a criminal conduct, that is, abetment to suicide. This case proved to be the very important case as to laying down the requirements for abetment to suicide, which is instigation (provoking), Mens rea (guilty mind or intention), and last but not the least the act must directly relate to commission of suicide, under Section 307 of IPC. The Supreme Court said that broken relationship, which are emotionally difficult, does not amount to abetment to suicide. It protects the common man from the criminal provision where the accused’s act and the victim’s suicide have no relation. This case will act as the precedent for the other cases, which will use this decision to argue for the importance of solid proof of intent and direct act for the abetment of suicide, and safeguarding the innocent thus, serving the justice.
References
[1] Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka (2024) INSC 908
[2] Indian Penal Code, 1860
[3] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
[4] Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618
[5] M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011) 3 SCC 626
[6] Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State of Delhi (2009) 16 SCC 605
[7] Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707
[8] Prabhu v. State represented by Inspector of Police & Anr. (2024) SCC Online SC 137
