Supreme Court: In an appeal against conviction of appellant under Section 306 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. discussed the importance of recovery of trace of poison consumed or administered to the deceased and held that there was no evidence based on which the appellant could be held guilty of abetting suicide and set aside his conviction under Section 306 of IPC.
Brief Facts
The appellant used to reside at the deceased’s house as a tenant. On the date of incident, he was residing somewhere else after expiry of term of lease agreement. On 5-07-2000, the deceased was returning home after dropping his sister’s children at school. The appellant was waiting on the way and teased her to marry him. On deceased’s refusal to respond, the appellant threatened to destroy her sister’s family, outrage their modesty and kill them if she did not agree to marry him. After reaching home, she informed her sisters about the said incident and consumed poison. The neighbours saw her lying on the floor in a painful condition through a window and got the door of the house opened. While the deceased was suffering, one of her sisters came with her husband and they took her to the hospital. She died on 6-07-2000.
Deceased’s father lodged a First Information Report on 7-07-2000 alleging the appellant responsible for his daughter’s suicide. The police registered crime under Section 306 of IPC and the chemical analysis report during post-mortem examination indicated presence of Organophosphate pesticide in stomach, small intestine, liver, kidney and blood, and the doctor’s opinion reflected that the death was caused due to respiratory failure after consumption of such compound, whose quantity was not mentioned. The police chargesheet submitted on completion of investigation named appellant as the accused.
The Trial Court held that the appellant abetted deceased to commit suicide and convicted him accordingly. In an appeal before the Karnataka High Court, the Court refused to interfere with his conviction and dismissed the same.
Court’s Analysis
The Court perused the evidence of informant father, two of the deceased’s sisters and her brother-in-law and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and found glaring inconsistencies, material omissions and gaping holes in the prosecution version. The Court highlighted the fact that while the father stated about living in the same house with his daughters, one of his daughters categorically denied the fact and also clarified that the father was residing separately with another woman outside marriage. Another aspect as revealed by the said daughter was that she saw her father on the second day of hospitalization. The Court found such behaviour ‘strange’ and ‘unusual’ for a father whose daughter had consumed poison and was struggling for life in a hospital. While his daughter died on 6-07-2000 at 7:30 PM, he waited till the next morning to lodge the police complaint.
The Court further highlighted the fact that the deceased had told her father as well as one sister regarding harassment meted out by the appellant 15 days prior to the incident, but neither of them confronted the appellant nor lodged any complaint with the police. The Court further highlighted the contradiction between the statements of deceased’s father and another sister regarding taking the deceased to the nursing home. Also, no one confronted the appellant for harassing the deceased with a proposal for marriage and threatening her with dire consequences when she refused. Examination of only two neighbours who also turned hostile, and no examination of doctors who treated the deceased, was another aspect highlighted by the Court. It further commented that “It is not at all believable that when the receiver was hanging, how the phone could go on ringing continuously. Adverse inference has to be drawn from such glaring contradictions and omissions.”
The Court clarified that “Though delay in lodging first information by itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case, unexplained delay coupled with surrounding circumstances can certainly dent the prosecution version.” The Court went on to peruse the legal provision surrounding attempt to commit suicide under Section 309 of IPC and hinted towards Section 306 which penalizes the person who abets the commission of such suicide in case the offence is complete. The Court went on to explain the terms ‘abets’ and ‘abetment’ through Section 107 of IPC.
The Court referred to M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 to elaborate ‘suicide’, Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 for ‘instigate’, Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 for ‘instigation’. Through a few more cases, the Court upheld the importance of examination of facts and circumstances by the Court.
The Court raised another important aspect that “In a case of death due to consumption or administering of poison or insecticide or pesticide, be it homicidal or suicidal, recovery of the trace of such poison or insecticide or pesticide is crucial.” The Court questioned the multiple injection marks over the front of both the deceased’s elbows, and a superficial linear incised injury on right wrist. It further mentioned the chemical analysis report dated 10-10-2000 and the final opinion dated 9-01-2001, having a delay of 3 months which went unexplained on part of the investigating officer.
The Court referred to the 27th edition of A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Jaising P Modi regarding Organophosphate compounds and highlighted that the doctors who treated the deceased in the two hospitals were not examined, who could have detected the smell of Organophosphate compounds emanating from the patient, and whether the intake was through injection or oral consumption. It further added that “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.” The Court raised doubts that if prosecution version was to be believed, there had to be presence of syringe and needle or a container at the scene of occurrence.
The Court expressed that “As a general principle, it can be said that in a case of death by poisoning, be it homicidal or suicidal and which is based on circumstantial evidence, recovery of the trace of poison consumed by or administered to the deceased is of critical importance. It forms a part of the chain; rather it would complete the chain to prove homicide or suicide.”
Covering the myriad reasons which may lead a human being to commit suicide, the Court explained that “it may not always be the case that someone has to abet commission of suicide.” The Court held that there was no evidence based on which the appellant could be held guilty of abetting suicide and set aside his conviction under Section 306 of IPC.
[Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 216, decided on 1-03-2024]
Judgment by: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: Advocate on Record Rajesh Mahale
For Respondent: Advocate on Record DL Chidananda
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
