Supreme Court of India
GEETAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 1089
- Decided
- 9 September 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- B V NAGARATHNA
Holding
The appellant is not guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC because the prosecution failed to establish the necessary mens rea and overt act that left the victim with no option but suicide.
Summary
The appellant, Geeta, was convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of her neighbour, Sarika, who set herself on fire after a series of verbal and physical altercations. The trial court held that Geeta's abusive language and the involvement of her family created a hostile environment that forced the victim to commit suicide, also convicting her under the SC/ST Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution proved the specific intent and overt acts required under Section 306, as interpreted in earlier precedents. It found that the evidence showed only ordinary neighbourhood quarrels, without any clear intention to drive the victim to suicide, and that the alleged abusive words were casual and not sufficient to constitute abetment. Consequently, the Court held that the conviction under Section 306 could not be sustained and acquitted the appellant, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The appeal was allowed and the appellant’s bail bond discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
- Whether the prosecution proved the requisite intention and overt acts that left the victim with no alternative but to commit suicide.
- Whether the conviction under the SC/ST Act was supported by evidence (though not central to the appeal).
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 143, s. 147, s. 149, s. 306, s. 323, s. 504, s. 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s. 3(1)(xi), s. 3(2)(v)
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.306, IPC is sustainable; was the evidence against the appellant of such nature that the overt acts attributed to her left the deceased-victim with no option except to commit suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – when not attracted – Deceased-victim and the first accused-appellant were immediate neighbours however, they were not on cordial terms and used to be at loggerheads – Case of the prosecution that victim took tuition classes in her house and that there used to be persistent noise
Subjects
Section 306 IPCAbetment of suicideNeighbourhood quarrelsCaste abuse allegationsIntent to abet suicideHarassmentOvert actsMens reaSC/ST Act acquittalSection 107 IPC
Judgment
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 44 : 2025 INSC 1089
Geeta
v.
The State of Karnataka
(Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2018)
09 September 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.306, IPC is sustainable;
was the evidence against the appellant of such nature that the
overt acts attributed to her left the deceased-victim with no option
except to commit suicide.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Ingredients
of s.306, when not attracted – Deceased-victim and the first
accused-appellant were immediate neighbours however, they
were not on cordial terms and used to be at loggerheads –
Case of the prosecution that victim took tuition classes in
her house and that there used to be persistent noise coming
from the house of the appellant and she repeatedly told the
appellant to ensure that there was no noise as it disturbed
her tuition – Victim had alleged that the appellant abused
her by calling her a bitch and said that though she was 25
years of age, she was not married and hurled caste abuses
too – Victim committed suicide – High Court confirmed the
appellant’s conviction u/s.306, IPC, as recorded by the Trial
Court however, she was acquitted for offence punishable
u/s.3(2)(v), SC/ST Act – Challenge to:
Held: 1.1 Appellant is not guilty of the offence u/s.306. [Para 24]
1.2 Neighbourhood quarrels are not unknown to societal living –
They are as old as community living itself – Though there is
evidence on record to show that over a period of few months the
neighbours were at loggerheads – While the victim felt that her
tuition classes were being disturbed, the appellant’s family have
also had a grievance about the victim and her family scolding the
children of the appellant’s household – Not only were there heated
exchanges, but physical blows were also alleged to have been
administered by the appellant’s party however, she was acquitted
* Author
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 45
Geeta v. The State of Karnataka
for the offence punishable u/s.323 and even u/ss.504 and 506 –
No appeal was preferred by the State. [Paras 15, 17]
1.3 The victim was a sensitive person and did not have any support
in the fight against the first accused – As the first accused had
support of her family, the victim felt miserable having felt that she lost
the fight, which impulsively prompted her to take the extreme step
of committing suicide, at the height of depressed mood. [Para 12]
1.4 Further, though the victim alleged that caste abuses were
used, evidence was found lacking resulting in acquittal of all the
five accused (the appellant and her four family members A2 to A5)
on that score – The other four family members were acquitted of
offence punishable u/s.306 also – Appellant herself was acquitted
of offences like being a member of the unlawful assembly, rioting,
causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and intentional insult with intent
to provoke breach of the peace – Those acquittals have attained
finality – Acquittal for offence under the SC/ST Act has also attained
finality. [Paras 13]
1.5 Furthermore, in order to bring out an offence u/s.306 IPC
specific abetment as contemplated by s.107, IPC on the part of the
accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person
concerned as a result of that abetment is required – The intention
of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to
commit suicide is a must for attracting s.306 – The harassment
meted out to the victim should have left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to his/her life. [Paras 19, 20]
1.6 When the appellant’s family and the victim’s family had heated
exchanges, there was no 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, there was no instigation on the part
of the appellant to such an extent that the victim was left with no
other option but to commit suicide – Appellant acquitted of the
charge u/s.306 – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 23, 24]
Case Law Cited
Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Another (1995) Supp.
3 SCC 438; Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another
[2010] 10 SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628; Amalendu Pal alias
Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [2009] 15 SCR 836 : (2010) 1
SCC 707; M. Mohan v. State [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC
626; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] Supp. 4
46 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618; Mahendra Awase v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76 : [2025] 2 SCR 80 – relied on.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
List of Keywords
Section 306, IPC; Abetment of suicide; Not guilty of the offence
under Section 306, IPC; Neighbourhood quarrels; Neighbours not
on cordial terms; Neighbours always at loggerheads; Caste abuses
alleged; Dorr; Die you bitch; Victim was a sensitive person; Acquittal
for offence under the SC/ST Act; Abetment as contemplated by
s.107, IPC; No intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or
to abet the deceased to commit suicide; Harassment; Overt acts;
Victim left with no other option but to commit suicide; Victim left
with no other alternative but to put an end to his/her life; No option
except to commit suicide.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1044 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2018 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Kalaburagi in CRA No. 3658 of 2011
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Sharanagouda Patil, Jyotish Pandey,
Yash S Tiwari.
Adv. for the Respondent:
D. L. Chidananda.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. The present appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court
of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi dated 27.04.2018 in
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 47
Geeta v. The State of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No.3658 of 2011. By the said judgment, the appellant’s
conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the
“IPC”), as recorded by the Trial Court, was confirmed. However, the
appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (for short the “SC/ST Act”). Insofar as the sentence imposed
for offence under Section 306 IPC was concerned, the High Court
thought it fit to modify the sentence of five years, as imposed by the
Trial Court, to that of three years imprisonment. However, the fine
of Rs. 5000/-, as imposed by the Trial Court, was maintained, with
a default sentence of six months for non-payment of fine.
2. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant for offence under Section
306 IPC as well as for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act. While the sentence of five years imprisonment was imposed
for offence under Section 306, life imprisonment had been imposed
along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence punishable under Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
3. We have heard Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. D. L. Chidananda, learned counsel for the State.
We have perused the records, including the Trial Court records.
4. The present matter pertains to an unfortunate incident that happened
on 12.08.2008 when the deceased-Sarika, daughter of Peeraji
Narayankar, set herself on fire around 10:00 p.m. in the night. She
was taken to the Government Hospital, Bijapur for treatment. At
the hospital, the deceased gave a statement before PW-16, Police
Inspector Nagarjuna, which was exhibited as Ex. P-8. PW-16 –
Nagarjuna, deposed that he received MLC from Bijapur District
Hospital stating that a person by name Sarika was admitted to the
hospital with burn injuries. After getting confirmation from the doctor
about fitness of Sarika to give statement, he recorded the statement
and obtained her thumb impression. PW-19 – Dr. Dileepa Ganjihala
corroborated the statement to the effect that Sarika was conscious
and was in a position to answer the questions. She had suffered
about 58% burn injuries. Similarly, PW-20 – Dr. Shivanagowda Patil,
also deposed that, on 13.08.2008, when PSI requested through a
letter to give opinion as to whether Sarika was in a position to give
a statement or not, he made an endorsement on the office copy
that the injured was in a fit condition to give statement. The letter
and the endorsement were marked as Ex. P-21 and Ex. P-21(a).
48 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
5. The statement marked as Ex. P-8, which formed the basis for the
complaint and F.I.R., reads as under:
“My place is Vijaypur and I stay in above mentioned
address. Geeta W/o. Raju Imdikar, they are staying in
our Colony since 6 years, and since 6 months they have
shifted to the house situated in front of my house which
belongs to one Mahadev Pol.
I have completed I.T.I and now studying in B.A III year. I
take tuition classes to small children in my home. At the
rented house of Geeta W/o Raju Indikar which is situated
in front of our home, there used to come some other boys
and make noise which troubled me as a result I told to
Geeta Indikar Not to make noise as it disturbs me, for
that she used to abuse me by saying “you bitch, what
you advise me it’s my house we do anything whatever we
feel like” and “ this dorr bitch is not married even after 25
years of age”. Like that she used to harass me when she
saw me she used to hurt me talking to me indecently. My
father Peeraji and my mother Renuka have advised Geeta
Indikar many times but still Geeta has abused me and
insulted since 6 months as a result I was very much hurt.
On last Sunday dated: 10.08.2008 when I was watching
TV with my brother Sanket in my home at the time Geeta
Indikar came there and scolded me and my brother by
saying “why did you scold our boy Rahul @ Vinayak what
that little kid has done” with her sister 1. Mala 2. Meena
3. Suhasini they have also come and abused me in filthy
language like bitch etc. On that day my brother and my
parents had advised them and stoped the fight for which
I didn’t say anything.
Yesterday on 12.08.2008 at about 8 in the evening myself
and my brother Sanket and my mother Renuka were
present in front of home 1. Geeta W/o. Raju Indikar 2)
Raju Indikar 3) Mala D/o. Narayan Sindagi 4) Meena D/o.
Narayan Sindagi 5) Suhasini D/o. Narayan Sindagi, these
five members came and stood in front of our home and
abused me by saying “you Dorr bitch you are not married
yet and you argue with us” and also gave life threat all
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 49
Geeta v. The State of Karnataka
together assaulted my mother and me with hands and
insulted and abused by saying “die you bitch” and all, that
hurt me mentally so yesterday on 12.08.2008 at about
10 O’clock in the night I took 5 liter can of oil from our
kitchen and poured it on myself and ignited myself with
the matchstick. When it started burn when my clothes
were burnt and I started screaming at that time my mother
Renuka and Pulabai w/o Yallappa, Sherkhan bibi from our
colony came and extinguished the fire, by time my brother,
my mother and Pulabai took me in an auto rickshaw to the
Govt. Hospital Vijapur and admitted me for treatment, my
face, chest, stomach, hands and legs, knees and thighs
were burnt and the skin had peeled off.
The above mentioned 5 accused since 6 months have
fought with me and abused me and insulted me by saying
“this Dorr bitch is not married even after 25 years of age”
and yesterday on 12.08.2008, 5 of them came to our home
and assaulted me and my mother with their hands in front
of my house as result I was mentally troubled, I myself
poured kerosene oil and ignited fire on myself and tried to
commit suicide in our kitchen and this complaint is against
the above mentioned 5 persons and yesterday I suffered
a lot but now I am feeling better. This I am stating before
you to write it down.”
6. It can be seen that the complainant had stated that she was taking
tuition classes for small children in her house; that there was
persistent noise coming from the house of the appellant and that
she had repeatedly told the appellant to ensure that there was no
noise as it disturbed her tuition. The deceased had stated that the
appellant abused by calling her a bitch and telling her that they will
do whatever they feel like. The appellant is alleged to have further
stated that the deceased, though 25 years of age, was not married.
Two days before the incident, on 10.08.2008, the deceased stated
that when she was watching TV with her brother Sanket at home,
the appellant came and scolded both of them by saying “why did
you scold our boy Rahul @ Vinayak what that little kid has done”.
According to the deceased, the appellant came with her sisters
Mala, Meena and Suhasini and abused her by calling her a bitch.
50 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
She stated that her brother and parents advised them, stopped the
fight and she did not say anything. According to the deceased, on
12.08.2008, at about 8 pm in the evening when she and her brother-
Sanket, and mother-Renuka, were present, Geeta W/o Raju Indikar,
Raju Indikar, Mala D/o Narayan Sindagi, Meena D/o Narayan Sindagi
and Suhasini D/o Narayan Sindagi came and stood in front of her
house and abused her by saying “you Dorr bitch you are not married
yet and you argue with us” and also gave life threat and assaulted
her mother and herself with hands and insulted and abused by
saying “die you bitch”. According to the deceased, all this hurt her
mentally so she on 12.08.2008 at about 10 O’clock in the night took
five litres can of oil from her kitchen and poured it on herself and
ignited herself with a matchstick. She stated that her mother, Pulabai
and Sherkhan Bibi extinguished the fire, and her brother, mother
and Pulabai took her in autorickshaw to the Government Hospital.
The deceased succumbed to her injuries on 02.09.2008 i.e., about
three weeks after the incident.
7. The Investigating Officer filed chargesheet against all the five
accused, namely,
1. Geeta W/o Raju Indikar – the appellant;
2. Raju S/o Sidram Indikar – since acquitted;
3. Mala D/o Narayan Sindagi – since acquitted;
4. Meena W/o Lokesh Agasar – since acquitted;
5. Suhasini D/o Narayan Sindagi – since acquitted;
for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 and
306 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
At the trial, after framing of charges, prosecution examined twenty
witnesses and marked documents as Ex. P-1 to P-25 and Material
Objects as MO-1 to MO-3. The statements of the accused were
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, held that the evidence
does not reveal any specific overt act of accused Nos.3 to 5 insofar
as the incident dated 10.08.2008 was concerned. It further found that
no overt act of accused Nos.2 to 5 was noted insofar as the incident
of 12.08.2008 was concerned in the complaint Ext.P-8. The Trial
Court found the statement to be omnibus and in general and did not
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 51
Geeta v. The State of Karnataka
reveal that accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been actively assisting accused
No. 1 Geeta (appellant) in irritating or annoying the deceased by
words, deed and did not indicate that they had intention to provoke
the deceased to commit suicide. The Trial Court found that there
was no cogent evidence to establish that accused Nos. 2 to 5 were
involved in the offence.
9. However, the Trial Court found that the statement Ex.P-8 read with
the oral testimony of PWs-5, 6, 8, 9,10 and PW-16 lend credence
to the prosecution theory that accused No.1 – appellant herein,
has been irritating or annoying the deceased by words and deed
to make the deceased to react. It was also found that the appellant
had intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the deceased
to commit suicide. The Trial Court also found that accused No.1,
in view of the abuses attributed to the deceased was also liable
for punishment under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. In the end
analysis, the Trial Court acquitted A2 to A5 of all the offences.
10. Accused No.1 – appellant was acquitted of the offences punishable
under Sections 143 (punishment for being a member of unlawful
assembly), 147 (punishment for rioting), 323 (punishment for
voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (punishment for intentional insult with
intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (punishment for criminal
intimidation) read with Section 149 (prosecution of common object).
However, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 306 of
IPC (abetment of suicide). Sentences, as indicated hereinabove,
were imposed on the appellant.
11. The appellant filed a Criminal Appeal before the High Court. The
State accepted the Trial Court judgment insofar as the acquittals
were concerned. The High Court acquitted the appellant for offence
punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, as the material
available on record was insufficient, and set aside the conviction and
the sentence of life imprisonment. It will be noticed that the High
Court recorded the following crucial finding:-
“11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant
as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
and when the judgment impugned is looked into; what is
seen is that a minor fight between the victim and the first
accused-appellant which has spread over for more than
52 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
six months· prior to the incident has taken an ugly turn
on the ill-fated day. The victim though an educated and
accomplished women who was working as private teacher
could not sustain constant harassment by the first accused
in the form of fight has taken the extreme step to commit
suicide. Assuming for a moment, if the accused has really
taken the caste name to insult the victim, most of the
neighbours who are witnesses on behalf of prosecution
being members of the same community would have
definitely stood by the victim while giving evidence. In fact,
it is only one eyewitness who is neighbour examined as
P.W.6 supported the case of prosecution as against the
evidence of P.W.7, 11 and 15 who are three immediate
neighbours of the victim have not supported the case of
prosecution with reference to accusation made by first
accused taking the name of the victim’s (sic).
12. Therefore, in this background what should be understood
is that the victim is a sensitive person and …….., when
she did not have any support in her fight against with
the first accused; as against that first accused had the
support of her family members who are accused Nos.2
to 5 made her feel thoroughly miserable and having felt
that she lost the fight, has impulsively promoted her to
take the extreme step of committing suicide, which is at
the height of the depressed mood which consequently
resulted in her death. It is after the incident, the victim has
stated in her complaint that she was ill-treated taking the
name of her caste which is not supported oy most of her
neighbours, except in all of them stating that the victim
and first accused were being immediate neighbours were
not in cordial terms and they always used to fight.
13. In this background, this Court find that the finding of
the Court below in holding that the accusation against first
accused is established so far as offence under Section
306 of IPC, appears to be just and proper. However, when
it comes to the offence alleged under Section 3 (2) (v) of
SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 is concerned, the material available
on record is not sufficient. In spite of that, the Court below
has committed serious error in convicting the first accused
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 53
Geeta v. The State of Karnataka
for the aforesaid offence and consequently imposing the
punishment of life imprisonment to her, which does not
stand to reason in the fact situation. Both from the point
averments in the complaint and as well as the evidence
available on record in support thereof”
12. From the judgment of the High Court, it is clear that: -
A. A minor fight between the victim and the appellant which had
spread over six months took an ugly turn on the ill-fated day.
The victim, though was an educated and accomplished woman
who was working as a private teacher, could not sustain the
constant harassment by the first accused and had taken the
extreme step of committing suicide. Most of the neighbours
have not supported the case of the prosecution with respect to
the first accused taking the name of the victim’s caste.
B. It should be understood that the victim was a sensitive person
and did not have any support in the fight against the first accused.
As the first accused had support of her family, the victim felt
miserable having felt that she lost the fight, which impulsively
prompted her to take the extreme step of committing suicide,
at the height of depressed mood consequently resulting in her
death.
C. It is only after the incident, the victim has stated in her complaint
that she was ill-treated by taking the name of her caste which
is not supported by most of her neighbours, except that all of
them stated that the victim and the first accused being immediate
neighbours were not in cordial terms and always used to fight.
13. It is in this background that we have to analyse the evidence while
appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the parties.
Though the victim alleged that caste abuses were used, evidence
was found lacking resulting in acquittal of all the five accused on that
score. The other four family members A2 to A5 have been acquitted
of offence punishable under Section 306 also. The appellant herself
has been acquitted of offences like being a member of the unlawful
assembly, rioting, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and intentional
insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Those acquittals
have attained finality. Acquittal for offence under the SC/ST Act has
also attained finality.
54 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
14. We are only to examine whether, taking the prosecution case at
its highest, conviction of the appellant under Section 306 could be
sustained. Is the evidence against the appellant of such nature that
the overt acts attributed to her left the victim with no option except to
commit suicide? We think not and we say so for the following reasons.
15. 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 question is whether on facts there has
been a case of abetment of suicide?
16. We have minutely scanned the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
PW-5 Sanket, the brother of the deceased, testified broadly
corroborating the version set out in the complaint. His narration
about the events that transpired on 12.08.2008 are omnibus and
general in nature. He also admits that they did not go to the Police
Station to file a complaint. He even speaks of the fact that he was
part of the group of persons who pacified the quarrel. PW-6 Phulabai
was a neighbour cited as an eye-witness to the incident. On being
asked in cross-examination that she had not mentioned in her
statement about the appellant having assaulted the mother of the
victim and catching her hair, she deposed to the effect that she did
not remember. PW-8 Sathyavva@Sakkubai, was a neighbour, and
PW-9 Renuka, the mother of the Victim has also deposed on behalf
of the prosecution. Their evidence is on the same lines as that of
the complaint lodged by the victim.
17. For the purpose of examining whether the ingredients of Section
306 are attracted, we take the prosecution case as it is. Taken at
its highest, there is definitely evidence on record to show that over
a period of few months the neighbours were at loggerheads. While
the victim felt that her tuition classes were being disturbed, the
appellant’s family have also had a grievance about the victim and
her family scolding the children of the appellant’s household. There
is no doubt that not only were there heated exchanges, but physical
blows were also alleged to have been administered by the appellant’s
party. Insofar as delivering of physical blows are concerned, today the
appellant stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section
323. She stands acquitted even for the offences punishable under
Section 504 and 506. The State has not preferred any appeal.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 55
Geeta v. The State of Karnataka
18. Even if we were to assume that physical blows were administered,
will that per se constitute abetment to suicide? This Court in a
case where the accused told the deceased “go and die” and when
thereafter, the deceased committed suicide, absolved the accused
of the charge under Section 306 by holding as under:
“3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling
people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter.
The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on
the assumption that these words would be carried out in
all events. ...”
[Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. and Another,
(1995) Supp (3) SCC 438]
19. This Court in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Another,
(2010) 8 SCC 628, held that in order to bring out an offence under
Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section
107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about
the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid
or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must
for attracting Section 306.
20. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal, (2010)
1 SCC 707, this Court held that the harassment meted out to the
victim should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put
an end to his/her life.
21. In M. Mohan Vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, this Court followed the
dictum in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC
618, wherein it was held as under:
“41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has
examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”.
Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy
the requirement of instigation though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to
that effect or what constitutes instigation must
56 [2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of
the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty
to incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. The present one is not a case
where the accused had by his acts or omission
or by a continued course of conduct created
such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide
in which case an instigation may have been
inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence and material available on record
wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having
abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant’s
wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.”
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to
convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and this act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he/she committed suicide.”
22. This Court in Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
2025 INSC 76, after analyzing the long line of precedents held as
under: -
“18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the
requirement of instigation the accused by his act or
omission or by a continued course of conduct should have
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with
no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held
that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be
said to be instigation.”
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 57
Geeta v. The State of Karnataka
23. 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.
24. In view of what has been held above, we find that the appellant is
not guilty of the offence under Section 306. We acquit her of the
charge under Section 306. The net result is that, the appeal stands
allowed and impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi dated 27.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal
No.3658 of 2011 is set aside. The appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds
stand discharged.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 306 IPC"Sign in to search