Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Nimesh and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., has held that an affidavit by the relative of the victim could not be grounds for quashing if the materials placed on record indicate the commission of the offence.

What was the Background of Nimesh and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. Case?

• In this case, consequent to the committal of suicide by the mother of the petitioners, crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), by the petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2.
• The petition was filed before the Kerala High Court to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners in a matter before the Panamaram Police Station, Wayanad.
• The petitioners submitted that the case of the prosecution that the victim committed suicide because of abetment is false and claimed that they were falsely implicated.
• The public prosecutor contended that the prosecution materials, including the suicide note of the deceased, display a pattern of harassment and threatening behavior from the petitioner’s towards the victim.
• The Court noted that merely because the sister of the 1^st accused filed an affidavit regarding settlement, shall not be a ground to quash the crime.
• Therefore, quashment sought for herein must fail and the High Court dismissed the petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice A Badharudeen observed that when the facts of the case placed on materials and other materials prima facie would suggest commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC by the accused persons, merely because the sister of the 1^st accused filed an affidavit regarding settlement, shall not be a ground to quash the same.

What is Section 306 of IPC?

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.