Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, has held that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation for committing an offence under the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Versus State of Karnataka Case?

• The case of the prosecution is that appellant used to harass and tease the deceased lady to marry him.
• The prosecution alleged that the appellant’s teasing and harassment of the deceased to marry him instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for the aforesaid offence.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed by the High Court and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court was upheld.
• Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
• It was also held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
• It was further states that merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC would not be sustainable.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 306 of IPC

• About:
  • Section 306 of IPC deals with the Abetment of suicide whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS).
  • It states that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
  • A bare reading of above provision would demonstrate that for an offence under Section 306 of IPC, there are twin requirements, namely, suicide and abetment to commit suicide.
  • Commission of suicide is not made punishable not because the commission of suicide is not culpable, but for the reason that the person culpably responsible would have departed from this world before he can face any indictment.
  • Whereas abetment of commission of suicide is viewed very seriously by law.
• Case Laws:
  • In the case of Randhir Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab (2004), the Supreme Court held that Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. A more active role, which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
  • In the case of Amlendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010), the Supreme Court observed that the Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.

Section 374 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the appeals from convictions. It states that -

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the High Court.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person, —

(a) Convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

(b) Sentenced under Section 325, or

(c) In respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under Section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

(4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under Section 376, Section 376A, Section 376AB, Section 376B, Section 376C, Section 376D, Section 376DA, Section 376DB or Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of filing of such appeal.