Facts
On 12 August 2008, Sarika (an unmarried lady from Vijaypur, who was studying and taking tuition classes) lit herself on fire. Sarika was harassed earlier by her neighbor Geeta (wife of Raju Indikar). The two families had been neighbors for about six years, but the relationship deteriorated in the months leading up to the incident. Sarika stated Geeta many times caused disturbances, made fun of her for being unmarried at 25 years old, and yelled at her. In Sarika’s dying declaration, Sarika said that Geeta had mocked her and abused her family on more than one occasion, along with her sisters and husband. There was an argument about a child on 10 August 2008, which led to abuses, followed by the argument on 12 August 2008, which took place outside the Sarika’s house (in which both Sarika and her mother were allegedly assaulted). Later that night Sarika poured kerosene upon herself and lit herself ablaze. Sarika suffered from 58% burns. After three weeks, Sarika succumbed to her injuries. Sarika statement was used by law enforcement to charge Geeta. The Trial Court found Geeta guilty under section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide was sustainable considering the evidence.
- Whether neighborhood quarrels and insults, though persistent, amount to instigation as contemplated under Section 107 IPC.
- Whether the dying declaration of Sarika could be treated as reliable and sufficient for conviction without substantial corroboration.
- Was the absence of verifiable evidence of caste-based abuses a legitimate reason to provide acquittal under the provisions of SC/ST Act?
Legal Provisions-
- Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 306(abetment of suicide), Section 107-(definition of abetment), Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 504 (intentional insult), Section 506 (criminal intimidation).
- The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- Section 3(2)(v).
- Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 313(examination of the accused). These provisions had to work in concert to shape the charges and give the court the opportunity to review.
Arguments
Appellant-
The appellant counsel contended that the conviction under Section 306 IPC was untenable because the necessary requirement of ‘instigation’ or ‘mens rea’ was missing. Sarika and Geeta were ordinary neighbors who had an argument that was typical of neighbors and the context of the alleged willfulness, premeditation, and deliberate act of instigation to suicide displayed by Geeta was meritless. The defense argued that, where words may have been said in anger or frustration, it cannot, as a matter of law amount to abetment. There were a number of precedents that were relied upon which include, Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh Criminal appeal 617 of 2000, and M. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2011 SC 1238 where it was emphasized that if mere harassment or quarrels without instigation evidence can lead to conviction under Section 306 IPC, then there was no line of demarcation between the convictions and a manslaughter charge. The appellant further argued that the High Court itself noted the inconsistencies in the witnesses, and there was no unneighborly corroboration of the caste abuses. Towards this, the argument underscored that the conviction based purely upon the dying declaration was unsupported by independent strong evidence, conflicting with criminal law principles requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Respondent-
The State argued that Sarika’s dying declaration was fully reliable and corroborated by other witnesses including her mother and brother. The instance of continuous harassment and humiliation especially in relation to her unmarried status, and social honor, spoke to mental cruelty. The State submits that a sensitive person such as Sarika, might be more easily influenced by the shameless and adversarial nature of such abuse and therefore the accused persons should be held liable for abetting the incident. The State further maintained that the dying declaration, was spontaneous, and recorded in the physical presence of a doctor who certified Sarika’s mental fitness, thus added reliability and credibility to the evidence. The State argued that reduced the culpability of the appellant to mere quarrels with no apparent impact does not reflect the true nature of the circumstances and would diminish the object of deterrence for section 306 IPC.
Analysis
The Supreme Court considered the case against Sarika using the principles of Section 306 of the IPC. The Court stated that a conviction for abetment of suicide must show that the accused had the specific intent to cause the suicidal act. The dying declaration made by Sarika spoke of harassment; however, the Court found that the mere quarrels and insults between neighbors are regrettable, but it does not amount to abetment unless it is accompanied by mens rea and a specific act of instigation. The Court cited various cases including Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. 1995. Supp (3) SCC 438 and reiterated that casual words or harassment or mere words alone do not comprise abetment under Section 306 unless such words or acts leave the victim with no option but end his/her life. In Sarika’s case, there was no evidence of Geeta’s deliberate intention to instigate Sarika to commit suicide, and the absence of witnesses from the neighborhood to corroborate allegations of caste-based abuse further weakened the prosecution case.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that when it comes to criminal liability, more specifically under the provisions of Section 306 it requires the highest threshold of evidence, as it holds individuals liable for another’s suicide. To impose criminal liability in cases of everyday quarrels can lead to the criminalization of social disputes. The Court also reiterated that convictions must be based on evidence and not on sympathy.
Judgment
The Supreme Court noted that the existing evidence did not demonstrate the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC. Although Sarika was subjected to suffering, the appellant did not act in a manner that constituted provocation or intentional abetment. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC was set aside. Geeta was acquitted of all charges, and her bail was discharged. The judgement of the Karnataka High Court dated 27 April 2018 in Cri Appeal No 3658 of 2011 was set aside.
Conclusion
This ruling reaffirms a fundamental principle of criminal law: not all forms of harassment, or a quarrel leads to criminal liability for abetting suicide. There must be clear evidence of a deliberate intention to instigate a suicide for Section 306 IPC to apply. The Court’s reasoning clarifies some of the haziness surrounding the distinction between social discord and criminal instigation. The judgment also shows judicial sensitivity, balancing transparency around the realities of vulnerable people and retaining the fundamental obligation of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The case has further implications. This case serves as a reminder of the obligation of the courts to not convict based on sympathy and follow the legal requirements of culpability. The judgment also reiterates the role of the community in preventing tragedies, noting that Sarika’s feelings of isolation possibly contributed to her decision. In addition, this ruling clarifies the applicability of Section 306 IPC in cases that arise from everyday neighborhood quarrels.
In sum, this decision bridges compassion with the rule of law. The decision exonerates the accused when the evidence does not support culpability, while nonetheless reminding society about the human effects of continuous harassment, and calling for social engagement and neighborliness to reduce tragedies in the future.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more
than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Anwesha Anant
For reading more please click here: geeta-v-state-of-karnataka-619824
