In a significant ruling that clarifies the legal boundaries of abetment of suicide, the Kerala High Court has held that merely uttering the words "go away and die" to a person during a verbal altercation does not amount to an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This decision underscores the critical importance of the accused's intention in such cases, rather than the subjective feelings of the deceased.
Case Background and Details
The bench of Justice C Pratheep Kumar delivered this landmark judgment while allowing a petition filed by a native of Kasaragod, who sought his discharge from a case connected with the suicide of a woman. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was involved in an illegal relationship with a married woman. Though the woman was aware that the petitioner planned to marry another woman, she confronted him about it, leading to a heated verbal altercation.
During this quarrel, the petitioner allegedly scolded her and told her to "go away and die." The prosecution further alleged that the woman, who was mentally disturbed by the petitioner's conduct, tragically jumped into a well along with her five-and-a-half-year-old daughter and committed suicide on September 15, 2023.
Legal Proceedings and Court Observations
The petitioner had initially approached the sessions court seeking discharge from the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, which deals with abetment of suicide. However, his petition was dismissed, and steps were initiated to frame charges against him, prompting him to move the High Court for relief.
While hearing the petition, the High Court made a crucial observation: in cases of abetment, what is material is the intention of the accused, not the perception or feelings of the deceased. The court noted that the words "go away and die" were uttered in the course of a heated verbal quarrel, without any intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
As such, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC were not made out. The court emphasized that for a conviction under this section, there must be clear evidence of active instigation or encouragement to commit suicide, which was absent in this instance.
Outcome and Implications
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and discharged the petitioner from the offences alleged against him. This ruling serves as a reminder of the nuanced interpretation required in criminal law, particularly in sensitive cases involving suicide. It highlights that mere harsh words spoken in anger, without a deliberate intent to provoke suicide, may not meet the legal threshold for abetment under Indian law.
The decision is expected to have broader implications for similar cases, reinforcing the principle that criminal liability must be based on concrete evidence of mens rea, or guilty mind, rather than emotional reactions or unfortunate outcomes.
