Wife’s Complaint Alone Didn’t Show Instigation: Karnataka HC Discharges Her And Family In Husband’s Suicide Case

The deceased Prasad was married to petitioner No. 1, Deepika.

After marital differences arose, Deepika lodged a complaint against Prasad and respondent No. 2, his mother, on 4 March 2022.

The complaint underlying the present prosecution alleged that police threatened Prasad at the station on 18 April 2022, after which he became distressed and died by suicide the following day.

The police registered a case against the petitioners under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC and filed a charge sheet.

The Sessions Court dismissed their application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.; the petitioners challenged that decision under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The High Court recorded that the complaint attributed the immediate threat to police officers, while witness statements also referred to an alleged threat by petitioner No. 3’s mother in February 2022.

Section 306 IPC applies where a person abets another’s suicide; under Section 107 IPC, abetment requires instigation, participation in a qualifying conspiracy, or intentional aid.

The Court relied on Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, for the principle that harassment alone is insufficient without conduct amounting to incitement that is connected to the suicide.

Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834, for the requirement of clear mens rea and an active or direct act leading to suicide.

Nipur Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 870, for assessing whether the materials indicate, even prima facie, that the accused intended the consequence of suicide.

Relying also on Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, the Court noted that a quashing court may examine the overall circumstances and investigation materials, not merely the complaint’s allegations.

The Court found no material indicating that the petitioners instigated or intentionally aided Prasad’s suicide, or had the requisite mens rea.

The complaint itself attributed the immediate threat on 18 April to the police, not the petitioners; Deepika’s complaint had been lodged more than a month before the suicide and, by itself, did not constitute abetment.

The alleged threat attributed to petitioner No. 3’s mother was said to have occurred in February, and the relevant witness statement was recorded months later; the Court considered the alleged conduct too remote from the suicide to establish the necessary connection.

On an overall assessment of the charge-sheet materials, the Court concluded that the essential ingredients of Sections 306 and 34 IPC were not made out.

It allowed the petition, set aside the Sessions Court’s order, allowed the petitioners’ Section 227 Cr.P.C. discharge application, and discharged them from the offences charged.