The Karnataka High Court has discharged four accused persons from proceedings under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), observing that merely lodging a complaint against a husband over matrimonial disputes cannot, by itself, amount to abetment of suicide.
Justice Rajesh Rai K held that the prosecution materials must disclose some direct or indirect act of instigation or intentional assistance that has a proximate connection with the suicide. In the absence of such material or the necessary intention, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Background
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between a married couple whose relationship reportedly became strained after approximately one year of marriage. The wife subsequently left the matrimonial home and lodged a police complaint against her husband and his mother on March 4, 2022.
According to the complaint filed by the husband's mother, the husband and his mother were allegedly threatened by police officials when they visited the police station in connection with anticipatory bail conditions. The husband reportedly became distressed following the incident and died by suicide on April 19, 2022.
Following the incident, a criminal case was registered against four family members under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Their application seeking discharge under Section 227 CrPC was rejected by the Sessions Court, prompting them to approach the High Court.
The petitioners argued that the complaint and charge sheet did not establish any positive act of instigation or intentional assistance on their part. They also pointed out that the allegations concerning threats at the police station were directed against police officials, who had not been named as accused.
Examining the complaint and witness statements, the High Court noted that the complaint did not attribute the suicide to any specific instigation or harassment by the petitioners. It also observed that the wife's complaint had been lodged more than a month before the incident.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, the Court reiterated that harassment allegations alone are insufficient to establish abetment.
The Court observed:
"There is no material to indicate that the petitioners had, either directly or indirectly, instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. There is also no material to prima facie indicate any mens rea on the part of the petitioners to drive the deceased to commit suicide."
The Court further emphasised that the necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC must be established through the available materials and cannot be presumed merely because a person has died by suicide.
It held:
"Even if the allegations made in the FIR and the other materials collected during the course of investigation are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC are not made out against the petitioners."
Allowing the criminal petition, the Karnataka High Court set aside the Sessions Court's order dated October 25, 2024. It allowed the petitioners' discharge application under Section 227 CrPC and discharged all four petitioners from the offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
