The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on the interpretation of abetment of suicide laws, has acquitted a woman convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan held that heated exchanges and quarrels common in neighbourhood living, without a clear mens rea or intention to push the deceased to commit suicide, do not satisfy the legal requirements for “instigation.” The court set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had upheld the woman’s conviction in a case stemming from a dispute with her neighbour who subsequently died by suicide.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an unfortunate incident on August 12, 2008, when Sarika, the daughter of Peeraji Narayankar, self-immolated at her residence. Before succumbing to her injuries on September 2, 2008, Sarika gave a statement to the police, which formed the basis of the First Information Report (FIR).
In her statement, Sarika detailed a history of harassment by her neighbour, Geeta (the appellant). Sarika, who ran tuition classes for children at her home, alleged that she was disturbed by noise from Geeta’s house. When she requested Geeta to reduce the noise, she was allegedly abused. Sarika’s statement claimed Geeta would say, “you bitch, what you advise me it’s my house we do anything whatever we feel like,” and taunt her, saying, “this dorr bitch is not married even after 25 years of age.”
The dispute escalated on August 12, 2008. Sarika stated that at about 8:00 p.m., Geeta, along with four family members, came to her house and abused her, saying, “you Dorr bitch you are not married yet and you argue with us.” She further alleged that they issued life threats, assaulted her and her mother, and insulted them by saying, “die you bitch.” Citing that this “hurt me mentally,” Sarika stated that she poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire at around 10:00 p.m. that night.
Following an investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against Geeta and four of her relatives for offences including unlawful assembly, rioting, assault, and abetment of suicide under the IPC, as well as offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Decisions of the Lower Courts
The Trial Court acquitted four of the five accused, finding the evidence against them to be “omnibus and in general.” However, it convicted the appellant, Geeta, for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC and for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, sentencing her to five years imprisonment and life imprisonment, respectively.
On appeal, the High Court of Karnataka acquitted Geeta of the offence under the SC/ST Act, citing insufficient material on record. However, it upheld her conviction under Section 306 IPC, though it reduced the sentence from five years to three years. The High Court observed that the victim was a “sensitive person” and that a “minor fight” over six months had “taken an ugly turn,” which “impulsively prompted her to take the extreme step of committing suicide, which is at the height of the depressed mood.”
The Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, hearing Geeta’s final appeal, was tasked with examining whether, taking the prosecution’s case at its highest, the conviction under Section 306 IPC could be sustained. The central legal question was whether the appellant’s actions amounted to abetment.
The bench, after a minute scan of the evidence, began its analysis by observing, “Though ‘love thy neighbour’ is the ideal scenario, neighbourhood quarrels are not unknown to societal living. They are as old as community living itself.”
The Court found that while there was evidence of heated exchanges and loggerheads between the two families, the crucial element of mens rea (a guilty mind) to instigate suicide was absent. The judgment noted that to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear intention to commit the offence and an active or direct act that leads the deceased to commit suicide, leaving them with no other option.
In its reasoning, the Court relied on several precedents:
- Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. and Another: The Court reiterated that words like “go and die,” often used in the “heat of the moment between quarrelling people,” are casual and do not reflect the requisite mens rea.
- Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Another: This case established that an offence under Section 306 IPC requires specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC, with an intention to bring about the suicide.
- Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh: Citing this case, the bench emphasized, “Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’… A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
Applying these legal tests, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of instigation. The judgment authored by Justice K.V. Viswanathan stated, “Applying the tests laid down hereinabove, we are not able to persuade ourselves to hold that when the appellant’s family and the victim’s family had heated exchanges, there was any intention to abet or to cause any member of either family to take their own life. These quarrels occur in everyday life, and on facts we are not able to conclude that there was an instigation on the part of the appellant to such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide.”
Consequently, the Court found the appellant, Geeta, not guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge. Her bail bonds were discharged.
