(A) Penal Code, 1860, Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Circumstantial evidence – Appeal against conviction – Appreciation of evidence –Death caused by intake of the Organophosphate compound -Doctors who had treated the deceased in the first nursing home and later on in the Mission Hospital, were not examined by the police – They were also not summoned as court witnesses – Their testimony could have been crucial – They could have thrown light into the nature of intake of the Organophosphate compound: whether by way of injection or consumed orally? – Whether they could detect the smell of Organophosphate compound emanating from the patient? – This serious lacuna is further compounded by the fact that the prosecution had failed to recover any syringe or needle from the crime scene – No container or bottle containing the pesticide were also recovered from the room where the deceased was found lying on the floor or in any part of the house – There is no evidence to suggest that police had made an endeavour to search for such container or bottle – There is also no evidence to show as to how the deceased had acquired the pesticide – FSL report as well as the chemical analysis report are silent as to whether any trace of the pesticide was detected from any of the seized articles -Held that do not find any evidence on the basis of which we can hold the appellant guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased – While the death of a young woman is certainly very tragic, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that suicide has been proved; the other essential ingredient constituting the offence under Section 306 IPC, viz, abetment cannot also be said to have been proved – Conviction of the appellant held to be wholly unsustainable – Judgment and order of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court liable to be set aside and quashed. (Para 46 to 50)
(B) Penal Code, 1860, Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Proof of – Held that in order to prove that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by a person it has to be established that (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above – Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. (Para 35.1)
(C) Penal Code, 1860, Section 107, 306 – Abetment of suicide – Word instigate – Held that to ‘instigate’ means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’ – To satisfy the requirement of ‘instigation’, it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence – But, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out – Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred – A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. (Para 34.1)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 135 SC
[2024 INSC 156]
Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs. State Of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011-Decided on 1-3-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-135-SC.pdf
