The Kerala High Court in the case Sunil Kumar V State of Kerala observed and has quashed the criminal proceedings which is intiated against the Defence aspirant for allegedly abetting the suicide of his college-girlfriend by keeping away from their relationship after passing out.
The single bench headed by Justice K Babu cited plethora of precedents to reiterate that in order to convict a person as stated under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence and an active act of instigation which led the deceased to commit suicide.
It has also been held by the said court that the abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing and without the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
The court in the case made following observations in a criminal petition filed by the petitioner-boy to quash the criminal proceedings against him.
The counsel appearing for the State contended before the court that it being the prima facie case was made out against the petitioner for abetting the commission of suicide of the victim.
The court stated that mere allegations of harassment would not attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, rather there should be direct or the indirect role played by the accused in instigating the victim in order to commit suicide.
The court in the case observed that there shall be the 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. Therefore, it depends upon the intention of the person who abets in order to bring forth the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Accordingly, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate Johnson Gomez and M.R.Sudheendran appearing for the petitioner.
The counsel, Public Prosecutor M.K.Pushpalatha and Advocate R. Sreehari represented the
respondent.
