1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’), seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioners in P.R.C. No. 53 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the Calendar Case facing accusation for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Heard Mr. Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State.
4.1. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the petitioners are Accused Nos.1 and 2, who are brothers of one Sangi Saritha. The deceased, Maheshwaram Kedhareshwar, had contracted marriage with Saritha on 10.06.2020 through an inter-caste love marriage. However, the petitioners were opposed to the said marriage and subsequently called the deceased and their sister to their native village purportedly for counselling. During the course of such interaction, the spouses were allegedly separated and a document evidencing divorce/separation was executed between them. It is further alleged that the petitioners threatened the deceased not to maintain any relationship or communication with their sister and also sent certain messages to him. It is alleged that, as a consequence thereof, the deceased became mentally disturbed and emotionally distressed.
4.2. Subsequently, on 28.07.2020, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, a crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the case was taken on file in P.R.C. No.53 of 2022.
5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that even if the allegations contained in the complaint, witness statements and charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. It is argued that there are no allegations suggesting any direct or indirect instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid on the part of the petitioners which could reasonably be construed as having driven the deceased to commit suicide. No specific overt acts have been attributed to them and the allegations are merely general, omnibus and inferential in nature.
5.2. Learned counsel further contended that there is absolutely no material demonstrating the existence of the requisite mens rea, namely, an intention on the part of the petitioners to provoke, compel or induce the deceased to take the extreme step of ending his life. Mere disapproval of an inter-caste marriage involving their sister, or even alleged threats restraining continuation of the relationship, by themselves do not satisfy the legal requirements of abetment of suicide. It is further submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of foundational ingredients constituting the offence would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
5.3. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Singireddy Srinivas Reddy v. State of Telangana, wherein it was held that mere threats, opposition to a relationship, harassment, humiliation or emotional distress, in the absence of cogent evidence establishing intentional instigation and a situation leaving the deceased with no reasonable alternative except to commit suicide, would not constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings in P.R.C. No.53 of 2022 arising out of Crime No.543 of 2020.
6.1. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and contended that the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners were strongly opposed to the inter-caste love marriage between the deceased and their sister and, under the guise of counselling, ensured separation of the spouses and obtained a divorce/separation document. It is further alleged that despite such separation, the deceased continued to communicate with Saritha, whereupon the petitioners threatened him and his family members through telephone calls and WhatsApp messages warning them of serious consequences if such conduct continued.
6.2. According to the prosecution, these acts subjected the deceased to severe emotional and psychological distress, resulting in depression which ultimately culminated in his committing suicide by hanging. It is therefore contended that the statements recorded during investigation, coupled with electronic material collected by the investigating agency, disclose a prima facie case warranting trial, and that interference at the stage of quashing would be unwarranted.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. The question that arises for consideration is whether the aforesaid material, taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, discloses the essential ingredients constituting an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, so as to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners.
9. It is by now a well-settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that Section 306 IPC cannot be invoked in the absence of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. To constitute abetment, there must exist material demonstrating instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid coupled with the requisite mens rea. The expression "instigation" necessarily postulates active encouragement, incitement or urging another person to commit a particular act. There must be a direct or indirect act of incitement having a reasonably proximate nexus with the commission of suicide.
10. In the present case, the crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioners opposed the inter-caste marriage of the deceased with their sister, facilitated separation between the spouses and thereafter threatened the deceased not to continue the relationship. However, neither the FIR nor the witness statements disclose any specific act amounting to instigation or encouragement to commit suicide. Even assuming the alleged threats to be true, they appear to have been directed towards preventing continuation of contact between the deceased and Saritha. Significantly, the alleged suicide note or WhatsApp communication does not specifically attribute any conduct on the part of the petitioners compelling or instigating the deceased to commit suicide. Further, the statements of LWs.1 to 4 do not reveal direct knowledge of any act constituting instigation. Their assertions that the deceased committed suicide because of the conduct of the accused are essentially inferential and founded upon their perception of the deceased's mental condition. None of them refers to any specific conversation, expression, threat, provocation or conduct attributable to the petitioners which encouraged or facilitated commission of suicide. The absence of any direct accusation in these materials considerably weakens the prosecution case.
11.1 Another significant circumstance is the absence of material establishing a proximate nexus between the alleged acts of the petitioners and the suicide. The prosecution itself states that the marriage was solemnized on 10.06.2020, the spouses were subsequently separated, and the deceased committed suicide on 28.07.2020. There is no allegation of any immediate or proximate act of provocation preceding the suicide. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200, the Supreme Court reiterated that there must exist a live and proximate link between the conduct complained of and the commission of suicide.
11.2 In Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 659, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that vague and general allegations, in the absence of specific material disclosing instigation or mens rea, are insufficient to sustain prosecution under Section 306 IPC.
12. A close reading of the prosecution record indicates that the deceased was emotionally devastated and mentally disturbed primarily on account of separation from his wife. Witnesses consistently state that the deceased was heartbroken and depressed due to disruption of his marital relationship. Undoubtedly, emotional trauma arising from a failed marriage, estrangement or forced separation may cause severe psychological distress. Nevertheless, such distress cannot, by itself, be translated into criminal abetment unless there exists evidence demonstrating that the accused intended, or reasonably knew, that their conduct was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
13.1 In M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, it was observed that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person to commit suicide and that a clear mens rea to commit the offence must be established.
13.2. Likewise, in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, the Supreme Court held that unless there is a positive act on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, prosecution under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.
13.3. In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, the Supreme Court reiterated that allegations of harassment, humiliation or pressure, unaccompanied by any direct or indirect act of instigation, would not amount to abetment. The Court emphasized that it must be shown that the accused intended, or reasonably foresaw, that their conduct was likely to drive the victim to commit suicide.
14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the considered view that, even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, they merely disclose opposition to an inter-caste marriage, facilitation of separation between spouses, and threats concerning continuation of the relationship. Such allegations fall considerably short of establishing the indispensable ingredients of instigation, intentional aid, mens rea, or a proximate nexus between the conduct of the petitioners and the suicide. The prosecution case essentially rests upon an assumption that the deceased was emotionally affected by separation from his wife and, therefore, ended his life. Such an assumption, however, cannot substitute the statutory requirements of abetment contemplated under Sections 107 and 306 IPC.
15. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the allegations contained in the prosecution material do not disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of the basic ingredients constituting the alleged offence would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
16. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners in P.R.C. No.53 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed.
17. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
