In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the scope of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that refusal to marry cannot, by itself, constitute abetment to suicide. The division bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan acquitted Kamruddin Dastagir Sanadi, who was convicted by the Karnataka High Court for abetment to suicide and cheating in connection with the tragic suicide of a 21-year-old woman, Suvarna.
The judgment not only reiterates the principles governing abetment but also emphasizes the need for evidence of intent or direct instigation to sustain such charges.
Case Background
The case stems from a relationship between Kamruddin, the accused, and Suvarna, a postgraduate student from Karnataka. According to the prosecution, the two were involved in a romantic relationship for over eight years, beginning when Suvarna was just 13 years old. Suvarna allegedly consumed poison and died on August 19, 2007, after Kamruddin refused to marry her during a meeting in Kakati, Karnataka.
The events leading to her death include two recorded dying declarations. In her statements, Suvarna recounted her heartbreak but did not accuse Kamruddin of inciting her to take the drastic step.
Her mother filed a First Information Report (FIR) against Kamruddin and his uncle under Sections 417 (cheating), 306 (abetment to suicide), and 376 (rape) of the IPC, alleging that Kamruddin had deceived Suvarna with false promises of marriage, which ultimately drove her to suicide.
Trial and Appellate History
1. Trial Court Verdict:
The II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, acquitted Kamruddin of all charges, citing insufficient evidence. The trial court observed that:
– There was no proof of instigation or abetment to suicide.
– The allegations of sexual exploitation lacked corroboration in Suvarna’s dying declarations.
– The relationship appeared one-sided, with Suvarna pursuing Kamruddin despite his refusal.
2. High Court Reversal:
On appeal by the State of Karnataka, the High Court convicted Kamruddin under Sections 417 and 306 IPC, sentencing him to five years in prison.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling, restoring the trial court’s acquittal. Key observations from the judgment include:
– On Abetment:
The bench underscored that abetment requires a direct or positive act of instigation, as defined under Section 107 IPC. Justice Mithal remarked, “Abetment involves a mental process of provoking or inciting someone to commit suicide. A refusal to marry, however hurtful, does not amount to instigation.”
– On Mens Rea:
The court emphasized the absence of mens rea (guilty intent) on the part of Kamruddin. It noted that Suvarna’s decision to consume poison was a result of personal anguish, not any deliberate act or coercion by Kamruddin.
– On Evidence:
The court found no substantive evidence of a promise of marriage, let alone a breach. Witnesses failed to corroborate claims of such promises, and the dying declarations made no mention of any physical relationship or deceit.
– Precedents Cited:
The court relied on earlier rulings, such as Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) and M. Mohan vs. State (2011), to highlight the need for a clear causal link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s decision to end their life.
The Court’s Decision
Quashing the High Court’s conviction, the Supreme Court ruled that:
– The refusal to marry cannot, in isolation, be construed as abetment to suicide.
– Broken relationships or emotional heartbreaks, though unfortunate, do not automatically impose criminal liability unless accompanied by evidence of intent to provoke the suicide.
Justice Mithal noted in the concluding paragraphs, “The facts and circumstances reveal this as a case of a broken relationship, not criminal abetment. To convict someone for abetment under Section 306 IPC, a positive act leading to suicide must be established, which is absent here.”
The appeal was allowed, and Kamruddin was acquitted.
Case Details
– Case Name: Kamruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012
– Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
