Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant case wherein the deceased was told to go and hang himself for indulging in an illicit affair with the petitioner’s wife thereby setting in motion the wheels of law against the petitioner for abetment of suicide; the Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J.*, considered the complaint, chargesheet and law laid down by the Supreme Court, and found that the petitioner had vented out his anger and had uttered words ‘go and hang yourself’ to deceased, however, this cannot mean that such an statement would become an ingredient of Section 107 of Penal Code, 1860, for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC – abetment to suicide.
Vis-à-vis the deceased person’s mental state, the Court opined that the reasons for him to commit suicide instant case may have been myriad, one of which could have been the fact of the deceased having illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner, despite being the Priest of a Church. “It is trite that human mind is an enigma and the task of unravelling the mystery of human mind can never be accomplished”.
Background and Contentions: The deceased was the Principal of Don Bosco CBSC English Medium School and Junior Priest of Shirva Parish who committed suicide on 11-10-2019.
It was alleged that the petitioner had had indulged in a telephonic conversation with the deceased immediately before his death and the deceased committed suicide owing to this conversation. It was alleged that the petitioner had threatened the deceased that he would be defamed for having illicit relationship with the petitioner’s wife and had also made a statement that the Priest should hang himself for the act of having affair with the wife.
The petitioner was accused of abetting suicide and proceedings initiated against him for offences punishable under Sections 306, 506, 504 and 201 of Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved with the initiation of such proceedings, the petitioner challenged the same via the instant petition seeking to set aside the impugned proceedings.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that it was an admitted fact that the deceased had illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner. When the petitioner came to know about it, he contacted the deceased and expressed his agony regarding the extra-marital affair.
Vis-à-vis the allegation that the petitioner used the words to the deceased “go hang yourself’, the counsel argued that this statement cannot become a factor in abetting suicide. It was submitted that the petitioner cannot be hauled up for abetment to suicide. The mental makeup of the deceased cannot be dependent upon the statement made by the petitioner, even if it is a statement saying ‘go hang yourself’.
Per contra, the respondents argued that due to the petitioner’s threatening words, the deceased committed suicide; therefore, the instant matter was a clear-cut case of abetment to suicide.
Court’s Assessment: The Court had to consider that whether the circumstances and the statements made by the petitioner would satisfy the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC.
The Court noted that Section 306 directs that whoever abets the commission of suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. Therefore, the soul of Section 306 is abetment. Meanwhile Section 107 of IPC clearly mandates that if the accused intentionally aids any act against the victim which leads to the ingredients of Section 306, then it would apply. Therefore, the crux of Section 107 is intention of the accused should be to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, intentional mindset of the accused which would be mens rea is required and it must be a positive act of the accused to instigate commission of suicide.
The Court relied on plethora of Supreme Court decisions, especially Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, wherein the Court had held that there can be myriad reasons for a man or woman or anyone to commit or attempt to commit suicide. Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself is relevant.
Therefore, the Court held that permitting further proceedings despite a charge sheet being filed against the petitioner would undoubtedly lead the proceeding to become an abuse of the process of law, and result in patent injustice.
[David D’Souza v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 47, decided on 22-04-2024]
*Order by Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For petitioner- Sandesh J. Chouta, Sr Advocate for Rakshith Kumar, Advocate
For respondent: KP Yashoda, HCGP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
good