Refusal to Marry Not Abetment to Suicide: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India, in Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012), dealt with the accused-appellant’s conviction under Sections 417 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court had acquitted him of all charges, but the High Court convicted him based on the State’s appeal. The charges stemmed from the alleged promise of marriage made to the deceased, Suvarna, and her subsequent suicide when the appellant refused to marry her.

The Supreme Court of India clears up misconceptions about the law regarding suicide and abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court ruled that simply refusing to marry someone cannot be considered as abetment to suicide.

This case involved a man who was accused of driving a woman to take her life because he refused to marry her. The woman’s family alleged that his refusal led her to take the extreme step. The man was charged under Section 306 IPC, which deals with abetment of suicide. However, the Supreme Court stepped in to clarify the law.

Key Facts:

1. Relationship Background: Suvarna, a 21-year-old MA student, was in a relationship with the appellant for 8 years. She claimed he had promised to marry her.

2. Incident: On 18.08.2007, Suvarna traveled to meet the appellant in Kakati, Karnataka. After his refusal to marry her, she consumed poison she had brought from Gadhinglaj.

3. Dying Declarations: Two dying declarations were recorded:

   • The first by PSI Kakati.
   • The second by the Taluka Executive Magistrate in the presence of a doctor. Both declarations highlighted her unrequited love and the appellant’s refusal to marry her but did not allege instigation or physical relationship.

4. Trial Court Findings: The trial court acquitted the appellant, citing:

   • Lack of evidence for instigation or abetment of suicide.
   • No proof of physical relationship or false promise of marriage.

5. High Court’s Ruling: On appeal, the High Court convicted the appellant under Sections 417 (cheating) and 306 (abetment of suicide) IPC, sentencing him to one year and four years imprisonment, respectively.

Legal Analysis:

1. Section 306 IPC (Abetment of Suicide):

   • Abetment under Section 306 requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in committing suicide (as per Section 107 IPC).
   • The Court emphasized that mere emotional distress or rejection does not amount to abetment unless accompanied by clear intent or action to provoke the victim.

2. Precedents Referenced:

   • Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh: Words spoken in anger or emotional situations do not constitute instigation.
   • M. Mohan v. State: For abetment, there must be direct intent to incite or provoke the act of suicide.

3. Appellant’s Defense:

   • No evidence of instigation, mens rea, or a promise of marriage.
   • Lack of corroboration of allegations in the dying declarations or statements of witnesses.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

1. The evidence did not establish that the appellant:
   • Promised to marry the deceased.
   • Instigated or aided her in consuming poison.
   • Had a physical relationship with her based on false assurances.
2. Emotional distress caused by rejection does not automatically result in culpability under Section 306 IPC.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court, noting the lack of evidence for abetment of suicide and the requirements of mens rea under Section 306 IPC, likely leaned toward acquittal. It highlighted the necessity of intent and active involvement to substantiate charges of abetment or cheating.

This case underscores the judiciary’s approach to interpreting abetment and emphasizes that criminal liability requires clear evidence of intent and causation.

Here are some important notes from the Supreme Court judgment, quoted directly from the court’s words:

1. On Intent for Abetment of Suicide:

   • “The mere fact that a person does not reciprocate the love or does not agree to marry cannot, by itself, be treated as an act of abetment to suicide.”

2. On Proving Abetment Under Section 306 IPC:

   • “The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had an intention to provoke, incite, or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.”

3. On Emotional Distress and Criminal Liability:

   • “Emotional setbacks, no matter how severe, do not constitute the offence of abetment to suicide unless it is proven that the accused intentionally acted in a manner to push the deceased to take such a step.”

4. On Romantic Relationships and Broken Promises:

   • “A relationship that does not culminate in marriage, for any reason, cannot, without evidence of intentional incitement, be treated as abetment to suicide.”

5. On Section 306 IPC Requirements:

   • “For invoking Section 306 IPC, there must be a direct and proximate link between the accused’s acts and the deceased’s decision to commit suicide.”

These excerpts emphasize the need for intent and evidence to attribute criminal liability under the law.