Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 1089
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1044 OF 2018
GEETA …APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. The present appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of
Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi dated 27.04.2018 in
Criminal Appeal No.3658 of 2011. By the said judgment, the
appellant’s conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short the “IPC”), as recorded by the Trial Court, was confirmed.
However, the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the “SC/ST Act”). Insofar as the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.09.09
17:37:48 IST
Reason:
sentence imposed for offence under Section 306 IPC was concerned,
1
the High Court thought it fit to modify the sentence of five years, as
imposed by the Trial Court, to that of three years imprisonment.
However, the fine of Rs. 5000/-, as imposed by the Trial Court, was
maintained, with a default sentence of six months for non-payment of
fine.
2. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant for offence under
Section 306 IPC as well as for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act. While the sentence of five years imprisonment was
imposed for offence under Section 306, life imprisonment had been
imposed along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
3. We have heard Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. D. L. Chidananda, learned counsel for the State.
We have perused the records, including the Trial Court records.
4. The present matter pertains to an unfortunate incident that
happened on 12.08.2008 when the deceased-Sarika, daughter of
Peeraji Narayankar, set herself on fire around 10:00 p.m. in the night.
She was taken to the Government Hospital, Bijapur for treatment. At
the hospital, the deceased gave a statement before PW-16, Police
2
Inspector Nagarjuna, which was exhibited as Ex. P-8. PW-16 –
Nagarjuna, deposed that he received MLC from Bijapur District
Hospital stating that a person by name Sarika was admitted to the
hospital with burn injuries. After getting confirmation from the doctor
about fitness of Sarika to give statement, he recorded the statement
and obtained her thumb impression. PW-19 – Dr. Dileepa Ganjihala
corroborated the statement to the effect that Sarika was conscious and
was in a position to answer the questions. She had suffered about
58% burn injuries. Similarly, PW-20 – Dr. Shivanagowda Patil, also
deposed that, on 13.08.2008, when PSI requested through a letter to
give opinion as to whether Sarika was in a position to give a statement
or not, he made an endorsement on the office copy that the injured
was in a fit condition to give statement. The letter and the
endorsement were marked as Ex. P-21 and Ex. P-21(a).
5. The statement marked as Ex. P-8, which formed the basis for the
complaint and F.I.R., reads as under:
“My place is Vijaypur and I stay in above mentioned
address. Geeta W/o. Raju Imdikar, they are staying in our
Colony since 6 years, and since 6 months they have
shifted to the house situated in front of my house which
belongs to one Mahadev Pol.
3
I have completed I.T.I and now studying in B.A III year. I
take tuition classes to small children in my home. At the
rented house of Geeta W/o Raju Indikar which is situated
in front of our home, there used to come some other boys
and make noise which troubled me as a result I told to
Geeta Indikar Not to make noise as it disturbs me, for that
she used to abuse me by saying "you bitch, what you
advise me it's my house we do anything whatever we feel
like" and " this dorr bitch is not married even after 25
years of age". Like that she used to harass me when she
saw me she used to hurt me talking to me indecently. My
father Peeraji and my mother Renuka have advised Geeta
Indikar many times but still Geeta has abused me and
insulted since 6 months as a result I was very much hurt.
On last Sunday dated: 10.08.2008 when I was watching
TV with my brother Sanket in my home at the time Geeta
Indikar came there and scolded me and my brother by
saying "why did you scold our boy Rahul @ Vinayak what
that little kid has done" with her sister 1. Mala 2. Meena 3.
Suhasini they have also come and abused me in filthy
language like bitch etc. On that day my brother and my
parents had advised them and stoped the fight for which I
didn't say anything.
Yesterday on 12.08.2008 at about 8 in the evening myself
and my brother Sanket and my mother Renuka were
present in front of home 1. Geeta W/o. Raju Indikar 2)
Raju Indikar 3) Mala D/o. Narayan Sindagi 4) Meena D/o.
Narayan Sindagi 5) Suhasini D/o. Narayan Sindagi, these
five members came and stood in front of our home and
abused me by saying "you Dorr bitch you are not married
yet and you argue with us" and also gave life threat all
together assaulted my mother and me with hands and
insulted and abused by saying "die you bitch" and all, that
hurt me mentally so yesterday on 12.08.2008 at about 10
O'clock in the night I took 5 liter can of oil from our
kitchen and poured it on myself and ignited myself with
the matchstick. When it started burn when my clothes
were burnt and I started screaming at that time my mother
Renuka and Pulabai w/o Yallappa, Sherkhan bibi from our
colony came and extinguished the fire, by time my
4
brother, my mother and Pulabai took me in an auto
rickshaw to the Govt. Hospital Vijapur and admitted me
for treatment, my face, chest, stomach, hands and legs,
knees and thighs were burnt and the skin had peeled off.
The above mentioned 5 accused since 6 months have
fought with me and abused me and insulted me by saying
"this Dorr bitch is not married even after 25 years of age"
and yesterday on 12.08.2008, 5 of them came to our home
and assaulted me and my mother with their hands in front
of my house as result I was mentally troubled, I myself
poured kerosene oil and ignited fire on myself and tried to
commit suicide in our kitchen and this complaint is against
the above mentioned 5 persons and yesterday I suffered a
lot but now I am feeling better. This I am stating before
you to write it down.”
6. It can be seen that the complainant had stated that she was
taking tuition classes for small children in her house; that there was
persistent noise coming from the house of the appellant and that she
had repeatedly told the appellant to ensure that there was no noise as
it disturbed her tuition. The deceased had stated that the appellant
abused by calling her a bitch and telling her that they will do whatever
they feel like. The appellant is alleged to have further stated that the
deceased, though 25 years of age, was not married. Two days before
the incident, on 10.08.2008, the deceased stated that when she was
watching TV with her brother Sanket at home, the appellant came and
scolded both of them by saying “why did you scold our boy Rahul @
5
Vinayak what that little kid has done”. According to the deceased,
the appellant came with her sisters Mala, Meena and Suhasini and
abused her by calling her a bitch. She stated that her brother and
parents advised them, stopped the fight and she did not say anything.
According to the deceased, on 12.08.2008, at about 8 pm in the
evening when she and her brother-Sanket, and mother-Renuka, were
present, Geeta W/o Raju Indikar, Raju Indikar, Mala D/o Narayan
Sindagi, Meena D/o Narayan Sindagi and Suhasini D/o Narayan
Sindagi came and stood in front of her house and abused her by
saying “you Dorr bitch you are not married yet and you argue with
us” and also gave life threat and assaulted her mother and herself with
hands and insulted and abused by saying “die you bitch” . According
to the deceased, all this hurt her mentally so she on 12.08.2008 at
about 10 O’clock in the night took five litres can of oil from her
kitchen and poured it on herself and ignited herself with a matchstick.
She stated that her mother, Pulabai and Sherkhan Bibi extinguished
the fire, and her brother, mother and Pulabai took her in autorickshaw
to the Government Hospital. The deceased succumbed to her injuries
on 02.09.2008 i.e ., about three weeks after the incident.
6
7. The Investigating Officer filed chargesheet against all the five
accused, namely,
1. Geeta W/o Raju Indikar – the appellant;
2. Raju S/o Sidram Indikar – since acquitted;
3. Mala D/o Narayan Sindagi – since acquitted;
4. Meena W/o Lokesh Agasar – since acquitted;
5 Suhasini D/o Narayan Sindagi – since acquitted;
for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 and
306 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
At the trial, after framing of charges, prosecution examined twenty
witnesses and marked documents as Ex. P-1 to P-25 and Material
Objects as MO-1 to MO-3. The statements of the accused were
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, held that the
evidence does not reveal any specific overt act of accused Nos.3 to 5
insofar as the incident dated 10.08.2008 was concerned. It further
found that no overt act of accused Nos.2 to 5 was noted insofar as the
incident of 12.08.2008 was concerned in the complaint Ext.P-8. The
Trial Court found the statement to be omnibus and in general and did
not reveal that accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been actively assisting
7
accused No. 1 Geeta (appellant) in irritating or annoying the deceased
by words, deed and did not indicate that they had intention to provoke
the deceased to commit suicide. The Trial Court found that there was
no cogent evidence to establish that accused Nos. 2 to 5 were
involved in the offence.
9. However, the Trial Court found that the statement Ex.P-8 read
with the oral testimony of PWs-5, 6, 8, 9,10 and PW-16 lend credence
to the prosecution theory that accused No.1 – appellant herein, has
been irritating or annoying the deceased by words and deed to make
the deceased to react. It was also found that the appellant had
intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the deceased to
commit suicide. The Trial Court also found that accused No.1, in
view of the abuses attributed to the deceased was also liable for
punishment under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. In the end
analysis, the Trial Court acquitted A2 to A5 of all the offences.
10. Accused No.1 – appellant was acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 143 (punishment for being a member of
unlawful assembly), 147 (punishment for rioting), 323 (punishment
for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (punishment for intentional insult
8
with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (punishment for
criminal intimidation) read with Section 149 (prosecution of common
object). However, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section
306 of IPC (abetment of suicide). Sentences, as indicated
hereinabove, were imposed on the appellant.
11. The appellant filed a Criminal Appeal before the High Court.
The State accepted the Trial Court judgment insofar as the acquittals
were concerned. The High Court acquitted the appellant for offence
punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, as the material
available on record was insufficient, and set aside the conviction and
the sentence of life imprisonment. It will be noticed that the High
Court recorded the following crucial finding:-
“11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as
well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and
when the judgment impugned is looked into; what is seen is
that a minor fight between the victim and the first accused-
appellant which has spread over for more than six months·
prior to the incident has taken an ugly turn on the ill-fated
day. The victim though an educated and accomplished
women who was working as private teacher could not
sustain constant harassment by the first accused in the form
of fight has taken the extreme step to commit suicide.
Assuming for a moment, if the accused has really taken the
caste name to insult the victim, most of the neighbours who
9
are witnesses on behalf of prosecution being members of the
same community would have definitely stood by the victim
while giving evidence. In fact, it is only one eyewitness who
is neighbour examined as P.W.6 supported the case of
prosecution as against the evidence of P.W.7, 11 and 15 who
are three immediate neighbours of the victim have not
supported the case of prosecution with reference to
accusation made by first accused taking the name of the
victim's (sic).
12. Therefore, in this background what should be
understood is that the victim is a sensitive person and ……..,
when she did not have any support in her fight against with
the first accused; as against that first accused had the support
of her family members who are accused Nos.2 to 5 made her
feel thoroughly miserable and having felt that she lost the
fight, has impulsively promoted her to take the extreme step
of committing suicide, which is at the height of the
depressed mood which consequently resulted in her death. It
is after the incident, the victim has stated in her complaint
that she was ill-treated taking the name of her caste which is
not supported oy most of her neighbours, except in all of
them stating that the victim and first accused were being
immediate neighbours were not in cordial terms and they
always used to fight.
13. In this background, this Court find that the finding of the
Court below in holding that the accusation against first
accused is established so far as offence under Section 306 of
IPC, appears to be just and proper. However, when it comes
to the offence alleged under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (PA)
Act, 1989 is concerned, the material available on record is
not sufficient. In spite of that, the Court below has
committed serious error in convicting the first accused for
the aforesaid offence and consequently imposing the
punishment of life imprisonment to her, which does not
stand to reason in the fact situation. Both from the point
averments in the complaint and as well as the evidence
available on record in support thereof”
10
12. From the judgment of the High Court, it is clear that: -
A. A minor fight between the victim and the appellant which
had spread over six months took an ugly turn on the ill-fated
day. The victim, though was an educated and accomplished
woman who was working as a private teacher, could not sustain
the constant harassment by the first accused and had taken the
extreme step of committing suicide. Most of the neighbours
have not supported the case of the prosecution with respect to
the first accused taking the name of the victim’s caste.
B. It should be understood that the victim was a sensitive
person and did not have any support in the fight against the
first accused. As the first accused had support of her family,
the victim felt miserable having felt that she lost the fight,
which impulsively prompted her to take the extreme step of
committing suicide, at the height of depressed mood
consequently resulting in her death.
C. It is only after the incident, the victim has stated in her
complaint that she was ill-treated by taking the name of her
caste which is not supported by most of her neighbours, except
11
that all of them stated that the victim and the first accused
being immediate neighbours were not in cordial terms and
always used to fight.
13. It is in this background that we have to analyse the evidence
while appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the
parties. Though the victim alleged that caste abuses were used,
evidence was found lacking resulting in acquittal of all the five
accused on that score. The other four family members A2 to A5 have
been acquitted of offence punishable under Section 306 also. The
appellant herself has been acquitted of offences like being a member
of the unlawful assembly, rioting, causing hurt, criminal intimidation,
and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
Those acquittals have attained finality. Acquittal for offence under the
SC/ST Act has also attained finality.
14. We are only to examine whether, taking the prosecution case at
its highest, conviction of the appellant under Section 306 could be
sustained. Is the evidence against the appellant of such nature that the
overt acts attributed to her left the victim with no option except to
12
commit suicide? We think not and we say so for the following
reasons.
15. Though ‘love thy neighbour’ is the ideal scenario,
neighbourhood quarrels are not unknown to societal living. They are
as old as community living itself. The question is whether on facts
there has been a case of abetment of suicide?
16. We have minutely scanned the evidence adduced by the
prosecution. PW-5 Sanket, the brother of the deceased, testified
broadly corroborating the version set out in the complaint. His
narration about the events that transpired on 12.08.2008 are omnibus
and general in nature. He also admits that they did not go to the Police
Station to file a complaint. He even speaks of the fact that he was part
of the group of persons who pacified the quarrel. PW-6 Phulabai was
a neighbour cited as an eye-witness to the incident. On being asked in
cross-examination that she had not mentioned in her statement about
the appellant having assaulted the mother of the victim and catching
her hair, she deposed to the effect that she did not remember. PW-8
Sathyavva@Sakkubai, was a neighbour, and PW-9 Renuka, the
mother of the Victim has also deposed on behalf of the prosecution.
13
Their evidence is on the same lines as that of the complaint lodged by
the victim.
17. For the purpose of examining whether the ingredients of Section
306 are attracted, we take the prosecution case as it is. Taken at its
highest, there is definitely evidence on record to show that over a
period of few months the neighbours were at loggerheads. While the
victim felt that her tuition classes were being disturbed, the
appellant’s family have also had a grievance about the victim and her
family scolding the children of the appellant’s household. There is no
doubt that not only were there heated exchanges, but physical blows
were also alleged to have been administered by the appellant’s party.
Insofar as delivering of physical blows are concerned, today the
appellant stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section
323. She stands acquitted even for the offences punishable under
Section 504 and 506. The State has not preferred any appeal.
18. Even if we were to assume that physical blows were
administered, will that per se constitute abetment to suicide? This
Court in a case where the accused told the deceased “go and die” and
14
when thereafter, the deceased committed suicide, absolved the
accused of the charge under Section 306 by holding as under:
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling
people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The
said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the
assumption that these words would be carried out in all
events. ..."
[Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. and Another,
(1995) Supp (3) SCC 438]
19. This Court in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and
Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, held that in order to bring out an offence
under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section
107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the
suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or
to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306.
20. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal,
(2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held that the harassment meted out to
the victim should have left the victim with no other alternative but to
put an end to his/her life.
15
21. In M. Mohan Vs. State , (2011) 3 SCC 626, this Court followed
the dictum in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , (2001) 9
SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:
“ 41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has
examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation".
Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a
case where the accused had by his acts or omission or
by a continued course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other
option except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there
is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom
an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted
commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife
therein) may necessarily be drawn."
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or
16
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing
no option and this act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
22. This Court in Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76, after analyzing the long line of precedents
held as under: -
“18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement
of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a
continued course of conduct should have created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered
in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.”
23. Applying the tests laid down hereinabove, we are not able to
persuade ourselves to hold that when the appellant’s family and the
victim’s family had heated exchanges, there was any intention to abet
or to cause any member of either family to take their own life. These
quarrels occur in everyday life, and on facts we are not able to
conclude that there was an instigation on the part of the appellant to
such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to
commit suicide.
24. In view of what has been held above, we find that the appellant
is not guilty of the offence under Section 306. We acquit her of the
17
charge under Section 306. The net result is that, the appeal stands
allowed and impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi dated 27.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal
No.3658 of 2011 is set aside. The appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds
stand discharged.
……….........................J.
[ B.V. NAGARATHNA ]
……….........................J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]
New Delhi;
th
9 September, 2025
18
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 1089
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1044 OF 2018
GEETA …APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. The present appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of
Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi dated 27.04.2018 in
Criminal Appeal No.3658 of 2011. By the said judgment, the
appellant’s conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short the “IPC”), as recorded by the Trial Court, was confirmed.
However, the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the “SC/ST Act”). Insofar as the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.09.09
17:37:48 IST
Reason:
sentence imposed for offence under Section 306 IPC was concerned,
1
the High Court thought it fit to modify the sentence of five years, as
imposed by the Trial Court, to that of three years imprisonment.
However, the fine of Rs. 5000/-, as imposed by the Trial Court, was
maintained, with a default sentence of six months for non-payment of
fine.
2. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant for offence under
Section 306 IPC as well as for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act. While the sentence of five years imprisonment was
imposed for offence under Section 306, life imprisonment had been
imposed along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
3. We have heard Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. D. L. Chidananda, learned counsel for the State.
We have perused the records, including the Trial Court records.
4. The present matter pertains to an unfortunate incident that
happened on 12.08.2008 when the deceased-Sarika, daughter of
Peeraji Narayankar, set herself on fire around 10:00 p.m. in the night.
She was taken to the Government Hospital, Bijapur for treatment. At
the hospital, the deceased gave a statement before PW-16, Police
2
Inspector Nagarjuna, which was exhibited as Ex. P-8. PW-16 –
Nagarjuna, deposed that he received MLC from Bijapur District
Hospital stating that a person by name Sarika was admitted to the
hospital with burn injuries. After getting confirmation from the doctor
about fitness of Sarika to give statement, he recorded the statement
and obtained her thumb impression. PW-19 – Dr. Dileepa Ganjihala
corroborated the statement to the effect that Sarika was conscious and
was in a position to answer the questions. She had suffered about
58% burn injuries. Similarly, PW-20 – Dr. Shivanagowda Patil, also
deposed that, on 13.08.2008, when PSI requested through a letter to
give opinion as to whether Sarika was in a position to give a statement
or not, he made an endorsement on the office copy that the injured
was in a fit condition to give statement. The letter and the
endorsement were marked as Ex. P-21 and Ex. P-21(a).
5. The statement marked as Ex. P-8, which formed the basis for the
complaint and F.I.R., reads as under:
“My place is Vijaypur and I stay in above mentioned
address. Geeta W/o. Raju Imdikar, they are staying in our
Colony since 6 years, and since 6 months they have
shifted to the house situated in front of my house which
belongs to one Mahadev Pol.
3
I have completed I.T.I and now studying in B.A III year. I
take tuition classes to small children in my home. At the
rented house of Geeta W/o Raju Indikar which is situated
in front of our home, there used to come some other boys
and make noise which troubled me as a result I told to
Geeta Indikar Not to make noise as it disturbs me, for that
she used to abuse me by saying "you bitch, what you
advise me it's my house we do anything whatever we feel
like" and " this dorr bitch is not married even after 25
years of age". Like that she used to harass me when she
saw me she used to hurt me talking to me indecently. My
father Peeraji and my mother Renuka have advised Geeta
Indikar many times but still Geeta has abused me and
insulted since 6 months as a result I was very much hurt.
On last Sunday dated: 10.08.2008 when I was watching
TV with my brother Sanket in my home at the time Geeta
Indikar came there and scolded me and my brother by
saying "why did you scold our boy Rahul @ Vinayak what
that little kid has done" with her sister 1. Mala 2. Meena 3.
Suhasini they have also come and abused me in filthy
language like bitch etc. On that day my brother and my
parents had advised them and stoped the fight for which I
didn't say anything.
Yesterday on 12.08.2008 at about 8 in the evening myself
and my brother Sanket and my mother Renuka were
present in front of home 1. Geeta W/o. Raju Indikar 2)
Raju Indikar 3) Mala D/o. Narayan Sindagi 4) Meena D/o.
Narayan Sindagi 5) Suhasini D/o. Narayan Sindagi, these
five members came and stood in front of our home and
abused me by saying "you Dorr bitch you are not married
yet and you argue with us" and also gave life threat all
together assaulted my mother and me with hands and
insulted and abused by saying "die you bitch" and all, that
hurt me mentally so yesterday on 12.08.2008 at about 10
O'clock in the night I took 5 liter can of oil from our
kitchen and poured it on myself and ignited myself with
the matchstick. When it started burn when my clothes
were burnt and I started screaming at that time my mother
Renuka and Pulabai w/o Yallappa, Sherkhan bibi from our
colony came and extinguished the fire, by time my
4
brother, my mother and Pulabai took me in an auto
rickshaw to the Govt. Hospital Vijapur and admitted me
for treatment, my face, chest, stomach, hands and legs,
knees and thighs were burnt and the skin had peeled off.
The above mentioned 5 accused since 6 months have
fought with me and abused me and insulted me by saying
"this Dorr bitch is not married even after 25 years of age"
and yesterday on 12.08.2008, 5 of them came to our home
and assaulted me and my mother with their hands in front
of my house as result I was mentally troubled, I myself
poured kerosene oil and ignited fire on myself and tried to
commit suicide in our kitchen and this complaint is against
the above mentioned 5 persons and yesterday I suffered a
lot but now I am feeling better. This I am stating before
you to write it down.”
6. It can be seen that the complainant had stated that she was
taking tuition classes for small children in her house; that there was
persistent noise coming from the house of the appellant and that she
had repeatedly told the appellant to ensure that there was no noise as
it disturbed her tuition. The deceased had stated that the appellant
abused by calling her a bitch and telling her that they will do whatever
they feel like. The appellant is alleged to have further stated that the
deceased, though 25 years of age, was not married. Two days before
the incident, on 10.08.2008, the deceased stated that when she was
watching TV with her brother Sanket at home, the appellant came and
scolded both of them by saying “why did you scold our boy Rahul @
5
Vinayak what that little kid has done”. According to the deceased,
the appellant came with her sisters Mala, Meena and Suhasini and
abused her by calling her a bitch. She stated that her brother and
parents advised them, stopped the fight and she did not say anything.
According to the deceased, on 12.08.2008, at about 8 pm in the
evening when she and her brother-Sanket, and mother-Renuka, were
present, Geeta W/o Raju Indikar, Raju Indikar, Mala D/o Narayan
Sindagi, Meena D/o Narayan Sindagi and Suhasini D/o Narayan
Sindagi came and stood in front of her house and abused her by
saying “you Dorr bitch you are not married yet and you argue with
us” and also gave life threat and assaulted her mother and herself with
hands and insulted and abused by saying “die you bitch” . According
to the deceased, all this hurt her mentally so she on 12.08.2008 at
about 10 O’clock in the night took five litres can of oil from her
kitchen and poured it on herself and ignited herself with a matchstick.
She stated that her mother, Pulabai and Sherkhan Bibi extinguished
the fire, and her brother, mother and Pulabai took her in autorickshaw
to the Government Hospital. The deceased succumbed to her injuries
on 02.09.2008 i.e ., about three weeks after the incident.
6
7. The Investigating Officer filed chargesheet against all the five
accused, namely,
1. Geeta W/o Raju Indikar – the appellant;
2. Raju S/o Sidram Indikar – since acquitted;
3. Mala D/o Narayan Sindagi – since acquitted;
4. Meena W/o Lokesh Agasar – since acquitted;
5 Suhasini D/o Narayan Sindagi – since acquitted;
for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 and
306 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
At the trial, after framing of charges, prosecution examined twenty
witnesses and marked documents as Ex. P-1 to P-25 and Material
Objects as MO-1 to MO-3. The statements of the accused were
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, held that the
evidence does not reveal any specific overt act of accused Nos.3 to 5
insofar as the incident dated 10.08.2008 was concerned. It further
found that no overt act of accused Nos.2 to 5 was noted insofar as the
incident of 12.08.2008 was concerned in the complaint Ext.P-8. The
Trial Court found the statement to be omnibus and in general and did
not reveal that accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been actively assisting
7
accused No. 1 Geeta (appellant) in irritating or annoying the deceased
by words, deed and did not indicate that they had intention to provoke
the deceased to commit suicide. The Trial Court found that there was
no cogent evidence to establish that accused Nos. 2 to 5 were
involved in the offence.
9. However, the Trial Court found that the statement Ex.P-8 read
with the oral testimony of PWs-5, 6, 8, 9,10 and PW-16 lend credence
to the prosecution theory that accused No.1 – appellant herein, has
been irritating or annoying the deceased by words and deed to make
the deceased to react. It was also found that the appellant had
intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the deceased to
commit suicide. The Trial Court also found that accused No.1, in
view of the abuses attributed to the deceased was also liable for
punishment under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. In the end
analysis, the Trial Court acquitted A2 to A5 of all the offences.
10. Accused No.1 – appellant was acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 143 (punishment for being a member of
unlawful assembly), 147 (punishment for rioting), 323 (punishment
for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (punishment for intentional insult
8
with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (punishment for
criminal intimidation) read with Section 149 (prosecution of common
object). However, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section
306 of IPC (abetment of suicide). Sentences, as indicated
hereinabove, were imposed on the appellant.
11. The appellant filed a Criminal Appeal before the High Court.
The State accepted the Trial Court judgment insofar as the acquittals
were concerned. The High Court acquitted the appellant for offence
punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, as the material
available on record was insufficient, and set aside the conviction and
the sentence of life imprisonment. It will be noticed that the High
Court recorded the following crucial finding:-
“11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as
well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and
when the judgment impugned is looked into; what is seen is
that a minor fight between the victim and the first accused-
appellant which has spread over for more than six months·
prior to the incident has taken an ugly turn on the ill-fated
day. The victim though an educated and accomplished
women who was working as private teacher could not
sustain constant harassment by the first accused in the form
of fight has taken the extreme step to commit suicide.
Assuming for a moment, if the accused has really taken the
caste name to insult the victim, most of the neighbours who
9
are witnesses on behalf of prosecution being members of the
same community would have definitely stood by the victim
while giving evidence. In fact, it is only one eyewitness who
is neighbour examined as P.W.6 supported the case of
prosecution as against the evidence of P.W.7, 11 and 15 who
are three immediate neighbours of the victim have not
supported the case of prosecution with reference to
accusation made by first accused taking the name of the
victim's (sic).
12. Therefore, in this background what should be
understood is that the victim is a sensitive person and ……..,
when she did not have any support in her fight against with
the first accused; as against that first accused had the support
of her family members who are accused Nos.2 to 5 made her
feel thoroughly miserable and having felt that she lost the
fight, has impulsively promoted her to take the extreme step
of committing suicide, which is at the height of the
depressed mood which consequently resulted in her death. It
is after the incident, the victim has stated in her complaint
that she was ill-treated taking the name of her caste which is
not supported oy most of her neighbours, except in all of
them stating that the victim and first accused were being
immediate neighbours were not in cordial terms and they
always used to fight.
13. In this background, this Court find that the finding of the
Court below in holding that the accusation against first
accused is established so far as offence under Section 306 of
IPC, appears to be just and proper. However, when it comes
to the offence alleged under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (PA)
Act, 1989 is concerned, the material available on record is
not sufficient. In spite of that, the Court below has
committed serious error in convicting the first accused for
the aforesaid offence and consequently imposing the
punishment of life imprisonment to her, which does not
stand to reason in the fact situation. Both from the point
averments in the complaint and as well as the evidence
available on record in support thereof”
10
12. From the judgment of the High Court, it is clear that: -
A. A minor fight between the victim and the appellant which
had spread over six months took an ugly turn on the ill-fated
day. The victim, though was an educated and accomplished
woman who was working as a private teacher, could not sustain
the constant harassment by the first accused and had taken the
extreme step of committing suicide. Most of the neighbours
have not supported the case of the prosecution with respect to
the first accused taking the name of the victim’s caste.
B. It should be understood that the victim was a sensitive
person and did not have any support in the fight against the
first accused. As the first accused had support of her family,
the victim felt miserable having felt that she lost the fight,
which impulsively prompted her to take the extreme step of
committing suicide, at the height of depressed mood
consequently resulting in her death.
C. It is only after the incident, the victim has stated in her
complaint that she was ill-treated by taking the name of her
caste which is not supported by most of her neighbours, except
11
that all of them stated that the victim and the first accused
being immediate neighbours were not in cordial terms and
always used to fight.
13. It is in this background that we have to analyse the evidence
while appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the
parties. Though the victim alleged that caste abuses were used,
evidence was found lacking resulting in acquittal of all the five
accused on that score. The other four family members A2 to A5 have
been acquitted of offence punishable under Section 306 also. The
appellant herself has been acquitted of offences like being a member
of the unlawful assembly, rioting, causing hurt, criminal intimidation,
and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
Those acquittals have attained finality. Acquittal for offence under the
SC/ST Act has also attained finality.
14. We are only to examine whether, taking the prosecution case at
its highest, conviction of the appellant under Section 306 could be
sustained. Is the evidence against the appellant of such nature that the
overt acts attributed to her left the victim with no option except to
12
commit suicide? We think not and we say so for the following
reasons.
15. Though ‘love thy neighbour’ is the ideal scenario,
neighbourhood quarrels are not unknown to societal living. They are
as old as community living itself. The question is whether on facts
there has been a case of abetment of suicide?
16. We have minutely scanned the evidence adduced by the
prosecution. PW-5 Sanket, the brother of the deceased, testified
broadly corroborating the version set out in the complaint. His
narration about the events that transpired on 12.08.2008 are omnibus
and general in nature. He also admits that they did not go to the Police
Station to file a complaint. He even speaks of the fact that he was part
of the group of persons who pacified the quarrel. PW-6 Phulabai was
a neighbour cited as an eye-witness to the incident. On being asked in
cross-examination that she had not mentioned in her statement about
the appellant having assaulted the mother of the victim and catching
her hair, she deposed to the effect that she did not remember. PW-8
Sathyavva@Sakkubai, was a neighbour, and PW-9 Renuka, the
mother of the Victim has also deposed on behalf of the prosecution.
13
Their evidence is on the same lines as that of the complaint lodged by
the victim.
17. For the purpose of examining whether the ingredients of Section
306 are attracted, we take the prosecution case as it is. Taken at its
highest, there is definitely evidence on record to show that over a
period of few months the neighbours were at loggerheads. While the
victim felt that her tuition classes were being disturbed, the
appellant’s family have also had a grievance about the victim and her
family scolding the children of the appellant’s household. There is no
doubt that not only were there heated exchanges, but physical blows
were also alleged to have been administered by the appellant’s party.
Insofar as delivering of physical blows are concerned, today the
appellant stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section
323. She stands acquitted even for the offences punishable under
Section 504 and 506. The State has not preferred any appeal.
18. Even if we were to assume that physical blows were
administered, will that per se constitute abetment to suicide? This
Court in a case where the accused told the deceased “go and die” and
14
when thereafter, the deceased committed suicide, absolved the
accused of the charge under Section 306 by holding as under:
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling
people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The
said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the
assumption that these words would be carried out in all
events. ..."
[Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. and Another,
(1995) Supp (3) SCC 438]
19. This Court in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and
Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, held that in order to bring out an offence
under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section
107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the
suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or
to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306.
20. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal,
(2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held that the harassment meted out to
the victim should have left the victim with no other alternative but to
put an end to his/her life.
15
21. In M. Mohan Vs. State , (2011) 3 SCC 626, this Court followed
the dictum in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , (2001) 9
SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:
“ 41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has
examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation".
Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a
case where the accused had by his acts or omission or
by a continued course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other
option except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there
is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom
an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted
commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife
therein) may necessarily be drawn."
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or
16
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing
no option and this act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
22. This Court in Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76, after analyzing the long line of precedents
held as under: -
“18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement
of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a
continued course of conduct should have created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered
in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.”
23. Applying the tests laid down hereinabove, we are not able to
persuade ourselves to hold that when the appellant’s family and the
victim’s family had heated exchanges, there was any intention to abet
or to cause any member of either family to take their own life. These
quarrels occur in everyday life, and on facts we are not able to
conclude that there was an instigation on the part of the appellant to
such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to
commit suicide.
24. In view of what has been held above, we find that the appellant
is not guilty of the offence under Section 306. We acquit her of the
17
charge under Section 306. The net result is that, the appeal stands
allowed and impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi dated 27.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal
No.3658 of 2011 is set aside. The appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds
stand discharged.
……….........................J.
[ B.V. NAGARATHNA ]
……….........................J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]
New Delhi;
th
9 September, 2025
18