Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) for abetment to suicide after his lover took her life when he refused to marry her. The Court clarified that mere refusal to marry does not amount to instigation or abetment unless there is evidence of provocation or intent to drive the person to suicide.  

• The judgment states that broken relationships alone cannot lead to criminal liability under Section 306. 

What was the Background of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka Case? 

• Suvarna, a 21-year-old MA student, was in love with Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi for eight years, having known him since she was 13. 
• Kamaruddin had previously agreed to marry Suvarna before the village elders but later left the village and moved to Kakati, Karnataka. 
• On 18th August 2007, Suvarna traveled to Kakati and met Kamaruddin, who refused to marry her when she requested. 
• After being rejected, Suvarna spent the night at the Kakati bus stand and consumed poison she had brought from her hometown the next morning. 
• Suvarna was taken to the hospital by Kamaruddin's relative and recorded two dying declarations before passing away on 19th August 2007. 
• Her mother filed a police complaint alleging that Kamaruddin had deceived her daughter by promising marriage and then refusing, which led to Suvarna's suicide. 
• The trial court initially acquitted Kamaruddin of all charges, including cheating and abetment of suicide. 
• The High Court later convicted Kamaruddin for cheating and abetment of suicide, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court. 
• The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted Kamaruddin, ruling that his refusal to marry did not constitute legal instigation for suicide. 
• The court emphasized that broken relationships and heartbreaks are part of everyday life and do not automatically constitute abetment of suicide.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution must prove a clear mens rea (guilty intention) and demonstrate an active or direct act that intentionally pushed the deceased to commit suicide with no alternative option. 
• The legal definition of 'instigation' requires a positive act of provocation, incitement, or encouragement, which goes beyond mere emotional words or a simple relationship breakdown. 
• The Supreme Court observed that each suicide case is unique, and courts must carefully examine the specific facts and circumstances, recognizing that individuals have different thresholds of self-esteem and emotional resilience. 
• Mere refusal to marry or a broken relationship does not constitute legal abetment of suicide, unless it can be conclusively proven that the accused deliberately created circumstances leaving the deceased with no alternative except suicide. 
• The court states that to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of IPC, there must be clear evidence of intentional provocation, or a systematic course of conduct designed to drive the victim to suicide. 
• The judgment reiterated that emotional discord and relationship challenges are common societal experiences, and not every emotional hurt or rejection can be criminalized as an act of suicide abetment. 
• The court stressed that without establishing a direct, intentional, and positive act of instigation, it is inappropriate to criminalize an individual for another's suicide, especially when no clear mens rea can be demonstrated. 

What is Abetment? 

• Chapter IV of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) provides for abetment, criminal conspiracy and attempt. 
• In the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) it is placed in Chapter V. 
• Section 108 of BNS provides 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. 
• The provision was in the form of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

What are the Legal Provisions? 

• Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): 
  • It defines abetment as when a person either instigates someone to commit an act, conspires with others to do something (leading to an illegal act or omission), or intentionally aids in its execution.
• Section 108 deals with Abetment of Suicide: 
  • Basic Provision:  
    • If a person commits suicide 
    • And someone abets (encourages, assists, or instigates) that suicide 
  • Punishment:  
    • Imprisonment for up to 10 years 
    • Additional liability to pay a fine 
  • Key Points: 
    • This section applies to cases where a person directly encourages or assists another person in committing suicide 
    • The abetment can be through various means such as:  
      • Providing means to commit suicide 
      • Encouraging suicidal thoughts 
      • Creating circumstances that lead to suicide 
    • The punishment is severe to discourage actions that might drive someone to take their own life 
• Related Case Laws: 
  • M Mohan v. The State (2011): The Supreme Court ruled that proving abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC requires a direct act with intent, leaving the victim no option but suicide.  
  • Ude Singh v. State of Haryana (2019): The Supreme Court held that proving abetment of suicide depends on case specifics, requiring direct or indirect incitement that leaves the victim no choice but suicide.