Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 5815 of 2015 and 8039 of 2015 (connected) – Varghese @ Pappachan and Others v. State of Kerala and Annamma Yohannan

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN` ``` THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ## `CRL.MC NO. 5815 OF 2015` ``` CRIME NO.81/2013 OF Pathanapuram Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP NO.7 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PUNALUR ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:` ``` VARGHESE @PAPPACHAN, S/O.GEEVARGHESE PODIYAN, VARATTUCHIRA THEKKATHIL VEEDU, CHENKILATH, SALENPURAM, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2ANNAMMA YOHANNAN, AGED 65 YEARS W/O.LATE YOHANNAN, VETTIKATTU VEEDU, CHENKILATH, KUNDAYAM MURI, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADVS. SMT.V.BEENA SMT.V.DEEPA SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL SRI.SAJITH C.GEORGE SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.8039/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN` ``` THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ## `CRL.MC NO. 8039 OF 2015` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP NO.7 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PUNALUR ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED IN SC NO.337 OF 2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ``` ``` SESSIONS COURT - V, KOLLAM ``` ## `PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1, 3 AND 4:` - `1 RAJAN VARGHESE, S/O.GEEVARGHESE SCARIA, RESIDING AT REEBA HOUSE, CHENKILATH, SALENPURAM, PATHANAPURAM.` - `2 ANEESH GEORGE, S/O.GEORGEKUTTY, RESIDING AT REEBA HOUSE, CHENKILATH, SALENPURAM, PATHANAPURAM.` - `3 SUSANNA GEORGE ROSAMMA, W/O.GEORGE DANIEL, RESIDING AT THUNDIL PUTHEN VEEDU, SALENPURAM, PATHANAPURAM, KUNDAYAM, PATHANAPURAM. BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA` ## `RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.` - `2 ANNAMMA YOHANAN, AGED 65 YEARS W/O.LATE YOHANNAN, VETTIKATTU VEEDU, CHENKILATH, KUNDAYAM MURI, PATHANAPURAM. BY SMT.V.BEENA SMT.V.DEEPA SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5815/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 3 ## **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-------------------------------------------** Crl.M.C.Nos.5815 and 8039 of 2015 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of August, 2024 ## **ORDER** These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are connected and therefore I am disposing of these two cases by a common order. 2. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.8039/2015 are accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 in C.P. No. 7/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Punalur and the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.5815/2015 is the 2[nd] accused in the above case. Now the case is committed and the same is pending before the Additional District and Sessions Court – V, Kollam. 3. The husband of the 2[nd] respondent committed suicide on 22.01.2013 and on the basis of the statement of CW1, Pathanapuram police registered Crime No.81/2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Annexures-A and B are the FIR and FI Statements. On Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 4 the basis of Annexure A FIR, the police conducted an investigation and filed a report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate – III, Punalur arraying the petitioners in these cases as accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 109 and 306 r/w 34 IPC. Annexure C is the report. Thereafter the police filed final report in Annexure-A crime against the petitioners in these cases alleging offences punishable under Sections 109 and 306 r/w 34 IPC. Annexure-D is the final report. It is alleged in Annexure-D that the deceased had borrowed an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- from the 2[nd] accused for purchasing a land and a residential building. It is further alleged in Annexure-D that, even though the deceased repaid the amount to the 2[nd] accused, the petitioners and the 2[nd] accused insulted the deceased for not paying the amount and threatened him that they will file a case against him. It is the case of the prosecution that, since the deceased could not withstand the insult and intimidation of the accused, he committed suicide. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. Hence these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed. Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 5 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in these cases. The counsel submitted that, even if the entire allegation against the petitioners are accepted, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not attracted. The counsel relied several decisions of this Court and the Apex Court to substantiate the case. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, this is a case in which the suicide note is also there and therefore, this court may not interfere with the prosecution at this stage. 6. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. To attract an offence under Section 306 IPC, the essential ingredients that need to be proved is the intention of the accused ie., it is not enough if the act of the accused caused persuasion in the mind of the deceased to commit the suicide. The accused should have intended by such acts, the consequence of suicide. Abetment is the main ingredients of Section 306 IPC. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishable under Section 306 Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 6 IPC. Section 107 IPC defines ‘Abetment of a thing’. It would be better to extract Section 107 IPC herebelow: ‘107:- A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation I: A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.’ 7. Unless there is ‘abetment’ as stated in Section 107 IPC, there cannot be any conviction under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution case in this case is that the deceased borrowed an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- from the 2[nd] accused for purchasing a land and a residential building and even though the deceased repaid the amount to the 2[nd] accused, the accused insulted the deceased for not repaying the amount and threatened him that they will file case against him. Since the deceased could not withstand the insult and intimidation of the petitioners, the Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 7 deceased committed suicide. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, I am of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. The nexus between the act committed by the accused and the suicide is necessary. _8._ This Court in **Cyriac v. S.I. of Police** [ **2005 KHC 1021** ] considered the ingredients of Section 306 IPC in detail. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment. ‘4 In short, accused allegedly abetted commission of suicide in furtherance of common intention by making insulting statements in public, 'why are you remaining as a burden to earth, why can't you go and die?". Does this act of petitioners constitute offence under S.306 IPC? To get an answer to this question, a study of the meaning of the expression 'abetment' under S.107 and a reading of S.306 IPC will be essential. Those provisions can be extracted below: "S.306: Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." "S. 107: Abetment of a thing. A person abets in doing of a thing, who Firstly -- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly -- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly -- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, in doing of that thing." Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 8 5. From the above provision, it is clear that to constitute offence under S.306 IPC, prosecution has to establish, 1) that a person committed suicide and 2) that such suicide was abetted by the accused. As per S.107 IPC, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, 1) if he instigates any person to do that thing 2) if he engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, and if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing 3) if he intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, in doing of that thing. xxxxxx 7. As per clause 'firstly' in S.107 IPC, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing if he 'instigates' any person to do that thing. But, when can a person be said to have "instigated" another to do an act? What is meant by the expression, 'instigate'? The word "instigate" is not specifically defined in IPC. As per Oxford dictionary, 'instigate' means, "to goad or urge forward to provoke, incite, urge, encourage to do an act". The meaning of the word 'instigate' was considered by Supreme Court also. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh, JT 2001 (8) SC 569, a decision cited by learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Supreme Court held, "instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". As per another decision cited by counsel for petitioners in Vedprakash v. State of M.P. (1995 Crl. L. J. 893) the word 'instigate' means "to goad or urge forward to provoke, incite, urge, encourage to do an act". xxxxxxx 14. Now, having understood the meaning of the term 'instigate' and 'abet commission of suicide', I shall proceed to consider whether the accused in any manner abetted commission of suicide, or instigated him to commit suicide, Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 9 as alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is admitted, offence under S.306 IPC is not made out in this case. 15. According to him, intention behind the act of the accused cannot be said to abet commission of suicide, but it can only be inferred that accused's only intention was to get back money which deceased owed to accused. He placed reliance on a decision reported in Vedprakash v. State of M.P. (1995 Crl. L. J. 893) in support of his contention. Here is the relevant portion: "Where the prosecution case prima facie revealed that the accused persons intimidated and goaded the deceased that if he does not repay the loan advanced to him, he will have to face with dire consequences and immediately thereafter he committed suicide, it could not be said that the accused persons provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. A person is said to "instigate" another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement". 16. It is further contended that words uttered in fits of anger or emotion also, will not amount to abetment. To substantiate the contention, learned counsel for petitioner cited decision in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh, JT 2001 (8) SC 569. In the said decision, the Supreme Court held as follows: "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 Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 10 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". 17. From the discussion already made by me, I hold as follows: The act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts consequence of suicide. Even if the words uttered by the accused or his conduct in public are sufficient to demean or humiliate the deceased and even to drive him to suicide, such acts will not amount to instigation or abetment of commission of suicide, unless it is established that the accused intended by his acts, consequence of a suicide. It is not enough if the acts of the accused cause persuasion in the mind of the deceased to commit suicide. 18. An indirect influence or an oblique impact which the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the mind of the deceased and which drove him to suicide will not be sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide. A fatal impulse or an illfated thought of the deceased, however unfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot unfortunately, touch the issue. Those cannot fray the fabric of the provision contained in S.306 IPC. In short, it is not what the deceased 'felt', but what the accused 'intended' by his act which is more important in this context. Of course, the deceased's frail psychology which forced him to the suicide also may become relevant, but it is only after establishing the requisite intention of accused.’ Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 11 9. In **Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. [2007 KHC 3745]** the Apex Court also considered the same issue. The relevant portion of the above judgment is also extracted herebelow: ‘6. S.107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of S. 107. S.109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in S.109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence 7. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty is not enough. (See Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 AIR SCW 4570). Merely on the allegation of harassment conviction in terms of S.306 IPC is not sustainable. There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was disturbed because she had not given birth to any child. PWs. 8, 10, and 11 have categorically stated that the deceased was disappointed due to the said fact and her failure to beget a child and she was upset due to this. Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 12 8. If the background facts are analysed it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. That being so, the appeal deserves to be allowed, which we direct.’ ## 10. In **Madam Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and** **Another [2010 KHC 4581]** also the same point is considered again by the Apex Court. The relevant portion is extracted herebelow: ‘9. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under S.306, IPC, much more material is required. The Courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross - examination by the appellant / accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant / accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B., 2005 KHC 427: 2005 (2) SCC 659: AIR 2005 SC 1775: 2005 SCC (Cri) 543: 2005 CriLJ 1737, this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused. Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 13 10. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to work.’ ## 11. This Court in **Harikrishnan and Another v. State** **of Kerala and Another [2019(3) KHC 437]** also considered the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: 21. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat 2010 KHC 4581: 2010 (8) SCC 628: 2010 (2) KLD 426: 2010 (8) SCALE 257: 2011 (1) Guj LR 99: 2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 1048: 2010 (2) SCC (L&S) 682: 2010 (93) AIC 8, the alleged acts of abetment were committed by the accused between the dates 15/10/2007 and 19/10/2007. The victim in that case had committed suicide during the period between 21/02/2008 and 23/02/2008. The Apex Court held that there was no proximity of time between the suicide and the alleged act of abetment. 22. In Amalendu Pal (supra), it has been held that there should be positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led to the commission of suicide. 23. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 KHC 1270 AIR 2002 SC 1998: 2002 (5) SCC Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 14 371: 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141: 2002 CriLJ 2796 proximity of time between the alleged act of abetment and the act of suicide by the victim was given emphasis by stating as follows: "Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July, 1998 ensued by quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27th July, 1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25th July, 1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27th July, 1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25th July, 1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27th July, 1998 would itself clearly pointed out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25th July, 1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the Courts below." 24. Proximity of time between the alleged act of abetment by the accused and the act of the victim is absolutely necessary. If the victim has committed suicide long after the alleged act of abetment by the accused, it cannot be found that there is nexus between the act of the accused and the act of the victim. Duration of a long time between the act of the accused and the commission of suicide by the victim negatives an inference that it was under circumstances that the deceased had no option other than to end his / her life that he / she committed suicide.’ ## 12. Again in **Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala [2023(6)** **KHC 106]** this Court narrated all the decisions in Section 306 IPC and observed that without a positive act on the part of the accused Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 15 to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction under Section 306 cannot be sustained. The relevant portion is extracted herebelow: ‘10. Abetment is defined in S. 107 of IPC, which is extracted below: '107. Abetment of a thing.-- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First.-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.-- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.-- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.' 11. The Code does not define the word 'suicide'. 'Suicide' reflects a 'species of fear'. It implies an act of self - killing. In suicide, one thinks of self - annihilation because of something which is disagreeable or intolerable or Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 16 unbearable. People behave differently in the same situation. Human sensitivity differs from person to person. 12. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2009 (16) SCC 605, the Apex Court held that suicidal behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. 13. Instigation is a vital ingredient of abetment. Instigation is also not defined in the Code. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (9) SCC 618, the Apex Court defined the word 'instigation' as follows: '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.' 14. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 17 be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the precedents on the subject make it clear that in order to convict a person under S.306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide (Vide: S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, 2010 (12) SCC 190 and M. Mohan v. State, 2011 (3) SCC 626). 15. The essential ingredients of the offence under S.306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation / abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under S.306 IPC (Vide: M. Arjunan v. State, 2019 (3) SCC 315). 16. In Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019 (17) SCC 301, a Two - Judge Bench of the Apex Court on S.306 IPC observed that in case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. If the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct create a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of S.306 IPC, the Apex Court added. The principles declared in Ude Singh was reiterated by the Apex Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387. Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 18 17. There shall be direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide by the accused. The person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide. Instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. It depends upon the intention of the person who abets in order to bring forth the ingredients of the offence under S.306 of IPC. The prosecution has to establish nexus between the alleged act of the accused and the commission of the suicide by the victim. The act of the accused must have a positive effect to drive the victim to the commission of suicide. 22. On the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent power under S.482 CrPC, the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 held thus: '102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art.226 or the inherent powers under S.482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 19 value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.' Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 20 13. From the above decisions, it is clear that, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. In order to bring out the offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out suicide of the concerned person as a result that abetment is required. The Apex Court observed that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for the offence under Section 306 IPC. As I mentioned earlier, even if the entire allegations in the present case are accepted in toto, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out in this case. It is true that the deceased committed suicide. But, unless there is materials to show that the petitioners committed the offence under Section 306 IPC, no Court can convict the petitioners. 14. The Public Prosecutor hand over the suicide note of the deceased. This Court perused the same also. Even if the entire allegations in the suicide note are accepted, I am of the considered opinion that, there is no ingredients to attract the abetment as Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 21 defined under Section 107 IPC and consequently, there is no chance to convict the petitioners under Section 306 IPC based on the same alone. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners in these cases are an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, these Criminal Miscellaneous Case are allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.337/2015 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court, Adhoc-V, Kollam arising from C.P.No.7/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur (Crime No.81/2013 ofPathanapuram Police Station) are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** DM/Sbna-02.08.2024 22 Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5815/2015` ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` ``` ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.81 OF 2013 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION. ``` ``` ANNEXURE B : TRUE COY OF F.I. STATMENT GIVEN BY THOMAS ``` ``` ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF REPORT FILED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION. ``` ``` ANNEXURE D : CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CP 7 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, PUNALUR. ``` 23 Crl.M.C.Nos.5815/2015 and 8039/2015 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8039/2015` ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` - `ANNEXURE A. TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.81 OF 2013 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION.` - `ANNEXURE B. TRUE COPY OF F.I. STATEMENT GIVEN BY THOMAS.` - `ANNEXURE C. TRUE COPY OF REPORT FILED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION.` - `ANNEXURE D. CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.P.7 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, PUNALUR.` ``` ANNEXURE E. TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.8564/2015 IN CRL.M.C.NO.5815/2015 DATED 03.09.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ```