Merely Because Accused Uttered Words ‘Go Hang Yourself’, It Cannot Become Offence Of Abetment Of Suicide: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that merely because the accused had uttered the words “go and hang yourself” to the deceased, it cannot become an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court observed thus while allowing petition filed by an accused for quashing of the proceedings pending against him under Sections 306, 506, 504 and 201 of the IPC.
The Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “If the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the complaint, the summary of the charge sheet are all considered on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court what would unmistakably emerge is that the petitioner, the sole accused, husband of the lady with whom the deceased Father had certain relationship and had blunt out his anger and had uttered words ‘go and hang yourself’ cannot mean that it would become the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC - abetment to suicide. The complaint registered against the petitioner is by the Circle Inspector. It is undoubtedly a well drafted complaint to contend that it is the acts of the petitioner threatening the Father, the Father has committed suicide. The same goes with the summary of the charge sheet.”
Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta appeared for the Petitioner whereas HCGP K.P. Yashodha appeared for the Respondent.
A Father, junior priest of a parish and principal of a school committed suicide. It was alleged that the Petitioner-accused had threatened the Father that he would be defamed for having an illicit relationship with the wife of the Petitioner and had also made a statement that the Father should hang himself for the act of him having an affair with the wife of the petitioner. It is alleged, that the petitioner has used the words to the Father ‘Go hang yourself’.
The Court observed, “In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court (supra), and on an analysis of the well crafted complaint and summary of the charge sheet, this Court is of the considered view 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. It is in these circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of State Of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal has clearly held that such cases should be nipped in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The reason for the deceased to commit suicide in the case at hand may be myriad, one of which could be the factum of him having illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner, despite being the Father and Priest of a Church. It is trite that human mind is an enigma and the task of unraveling the mystery of human mind can never be accomplished.”
The Court also highlighted that the Courts exercising jurisdictional powers under Section 482 of CrPC or even extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should read between the lines, looking to attending circumstances, emerging from the record and with due care and circumspection try to analyse the complaint.
The Court while highlighting the law of abetment of suicide relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. (1995), Sanju v. State of M.P.(2002), Amalendu Pal V. State Of West Bengal(2010), Kanchan Sharma v. State of U.P. (2021) and Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2024).
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: ABC v. The State of Karnataka
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta and Advocate Rakshith Kumar
Respondent: HCGP K.P. Yashodha