Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, which had been upheld by the Karnataka High Court after modifying the sentence from five to three years. The Court held that while quarrels between neighbours may turn unpleasant, words or acts in the heat of the moment cannot amount to instigation unless they clearly intend to push the victim to commit suicide. The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and her bail bonds were discharged.
Facts
The case arose from an incident on 12 August 2008, when a 25-year-old woman, a student and tuition teacher, set herself ablaze after a prolonged quarrel with her neighbour (the appellant). She sustained severe burn injuries and died on 2 September 2008.
In her dying declaration recorded by the police in the presence of doctors, the victim alleged that for the past six months, the appellant and her family members frequently abused her with derogatory remarks, taunted her for remaining unmarried, created disturbances affecting her tuition classes, and even physically assaulted her and her mother days before the incident.
Feeling humiliated and harassed, the victim doused herself with kerosene and lit herself on fire. Her neighbours and family extinguished the flames, but she succumbed three weeks later. Based on her statement, a chargesheet was filed against five persons for offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506, 306 read with 149 IPC, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
Issues
- Whether the acts of the appellant amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
- Whether quarrels and insults between neighbours could constitute the requisite instigation or mens rea to sustain conviction.
- Whether the conviction based on general allegations without clear overt acts met the legal standards for abetment.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the allegations were omnibus, general, and failed to show any direct incitement to suicide. She emphasized that mere quarrels or insults, even if harsh, do not meet the legal requirement of instigation.
It was submitted that the Trial Court itself had acquitted the co-accused (family members of the appellant) and that no specific overt act was established against them. As for the appellant, even assuming abusive words or physical altercations, the evidence did not prove an intention to provoke suicide.
The appellant relied on Supreme Court precedents to argue that a conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear mens rea, direct instigation, or a course of conduct leaving the victim with no option but to end her life.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution maintained that the victim’s dying declaration clearly implicated the appellant as the primary instigator. The continuous harassment over six months, the abusive words, insults about her marital status, and the altercation days before the incident created unbearable mental trauma that drove the victim to suicide.
It was argued that the dying declaration was corroborated by witnesses, including the victim’s mother and neighbours, and that the appellant’s persistent conduct satisfied the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. The High Court, therefore, rightly upheld the conviction while setting aside the SC/ST charge for want of evidence.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of Section 306 IPC alongside Section 107 IPC (defining abetment). It reiterated that:
- Instigation means to provoke, incite, or encourage an act.
- Words uttered in anger or heat of the moment do not amount to instigation unless they carry reasonable certainty of inciting the consequence.
- Mere quarrels or harassment, without clear intent to push the victim into suicide, cannot attract Section 306.
The Court relied on established jurisprudence emphasizing that mens rea and active acts are essential to constitute abetment, and that casual remarks like “go and die” cannot form the basis for conviction.
Precedent Analysis
- Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438) – Held that words like “go and die,” uttered casually in quarrel, do not constitute instigation. Applied here to reject the prosecution’s case of abetment based on heated exchanges.
- Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628 – Clarified that abetment under Section 306 requires intentional acts of incitement.
- Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 – Harassment must be such that it leaves no option but suicide; not established here.
- M. Mohan v. State (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 – Defined instigation as “goading or urging forward.” The Court reiterated that a single quarrel or casual remark does not amount to instigation.
- Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 76) – Recent ruling holding that a word uttered in anger without intent does not satisfy instigation. Relied upon to acquit the appellant.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that neighbourhood quarrels, though unpleasant, are part of social life and cannot, by themselves, constitute instigation to suicide. The prosecution evidence, even if accepted, only showed heated exchanges, taunts, and possible physical scuffles, but not the intentional provocation required for Section 306 IPC.
It stressed: “Quarrels occur in everyday life. 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.”
The dying declaration and witnesses corroborated quarrels but not the crucial ingredient of instigation with intent. Since the appellant was already acquitted of assault, intimidation, and SC/ST charges, sustaining conviction under Section 306 IPC was legally untenable.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC, and acquitted the appellant. It held that instigation must be clear, intentional, and compelling; casual quarrels and harsh words cannot be stretched to constitute abetment. The appellant’s bail bonds were discharged.
Implications
This ruling reaffirms the strict standards for convicting under Section 306 IPC. It safeguards individuals from criminal liability for casual fights, insults, or neighbourhood disputes, unless there is clear evidence of mens rea and instigation.
The judgment sends a strong message that criminal law cannot punish mere unpleasantness in social interactions and that courts must carefully differentiate between tragic outcomes and genuine abetment. It also underscores the evidentiary weight of intent in cases involving suicide.
FAQs
Q1. Can quarrels or insults between neighbours amount to abetment of suicide?
No. The Court clarified that unless the quarrels amount to intentional instigation with clear mens rea, they cannot sustain conviction under Section 306 IPC.
Q2. What did the Supreme Court say about casual remarks like “go and die”?
The Court held that such words, said in anger during quarrels, are casual and not sufficient to prove instigation to suicide.
Q3. Why was the appellant acquitted in this case?
Because the evidence showed only quarrels and insults but not the deliberate provocation necessary to prove abetment under Section 306 IPC.