MANU/SC/0001/2010

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2010(1)AC R393(SC ), 2010(86)AIC 193, AIR2010SC 327, 2010 (68) AC C 667, I(2010)C C R143(SC ),
C LT(2010)Supp.C rl.876, 2010C riLJ2110, 2010(1)EC rN 937, 2010 INSC 10, JT2010(1)SC 17, 2010(I)OLR(SC )779, 2010(1)RC R(C riminal)603,
RLW2010(1)SC 639, 2010(1)SC ALE1, (2010)1SC C 750, [2010]1SC R7, 2010(1)UC 216, 2010(1)UJ142

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2002
Decided On: 05.01.2010
Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dalveer Bhandari and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv. For T. Anamika, Adv
For Respondents/Defendant: I. Venkatanarayana, Sr. Adv., Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Singh
and Bachita Barua, Advs. for T.V. George, Adv.
Case Note:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306-Abetment of suicide-Conviction and
sentence-Whether sustainable? - Held, "no"-No evidence and material to lead
to inference of accused appellant having abetted commission of suicide by
deceased-Deceased undoubtedly was hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences happening in day-to-day life - Conviction of appellant
set aside.
(Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced. Please
write to [email protected] if the vernacular matter is required.)
The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the
Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306,
I.P.C. 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide.
Ratio Decidendi:
"To convict a person under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there has to
be a clear mens rea to commit the offence"
Case Category:
CRIMINAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL MATTERS IN WHICH SENTENCE AWARDED IS UPTO
FIVE YEARS
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1 . This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1039 of 1996 dated 30.3.2002.

09-04-2024 (Page 1 of 5) www.manupatra.com Gujarat National Law University Silvassa Campus

 The appellant was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') and sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to
suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
2 . The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court upheld the judgment of the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, but while affirming the conviction of the appellant
under Section 306 of the Code, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years was
reduced to 5 years. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment, approached this
Court. This Court granted leave and released the appellant on bail.
3 . The brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as
under:
According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant, who is an agriculturist
had harassed his agriculture labour (servant) deceased Ramulu by levelling the
allegation that he had committed theft of some gold ornaments two days prior
to his death. It was also alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs. 7,000/-
from the deceased which was given in advance to him at the time when he was
kept in employment.
4 . The prosecution further alleged that the deceased Ramulu could not bear the
harassment meted out to him and he committed suicide by consuming pesticides. The
prosecution in support of its case examined the father of the deceased as P.W.1
Urikonda Jammanna in which he had stated that his son Ramulu was a farm servant and
used to work at the house of the appellant. He also stated that the appellant gave Rs.
7,000/- in advance to his son. PW1 also stated that about two years ago, the appellant
had asked his son (Ramulu) that his wrist watch was missing from his house and
harassed him on which his son had returned the watch to the appellant. PW1 in his
statement stated that the appellant also levelled the allegation that the gold ear-rings
were also missing from his house and the same were stolen by Ramulu. PW1 also stated
that the appellant also demanded the advance of Rs. 7,000/- paid to Ramulu at the time
of his employment. He further stated that Ramulu committed suicide because the
appellant had levelled the allegation of theft of ornaments.
5. The prosecution also examined Balamma, the mother of the deceased as P.W.2. She
also corroborated the statement of PW1 and gave same version of the incident in her
testimony. On the basis of the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the Trial Court convicted
the appellant under Section 306 of the Code and his conviction on appeal was
confirmed by the High Court.
6 . Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is
totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the Code
can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to
set out Section 306 of the Code:
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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
7. The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its
meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and

09-04-2024 (Page 2 of 5) www.manupatra.com Gujarat National Law University Silvassa Campus

 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing
suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in
achieving his object of killing himself.
8. Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal law, though
at one time it was a felony in England. In England, the former law was of the nature of
being a deterrent to people as it provided penalties of two types:
• Degradation of corpse of deceased by burying it on the highway with a stake
through its chest.
• Forfeiture of property of deceased by the State.
9. This penalty was later distilled down to merely not providing a full Christian burial,
unless the deceased could be proved to be of unsound mind. However, currently there
is no punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which
proclaims that the rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide
has been abrogated.
1 0 . In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the
successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under
Section 309 of IPC.
11. 'Abetment' has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate
to reproduce Section 107, which reads as under:
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
places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing
of that thing.
12. Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section 107 reads as under:
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.
13. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court
in Mahendra Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/1987/1995 : 1995 Supp. (3)
SCC 731. In the case of Mahendra Singh, the allegations levelled are as under:
My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's
wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants
to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law.
Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.
14. The court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no
stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.

09-04-2024 (Page 3 of 5) www.manupatra.com Gujarat National Law University Silvassa Campus

 According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely
on the basis of aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is
unsustainable in law.
15. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh MANU/SC/0654/2001 : (2001) 9 SCC 618. A three-
Judge bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a
dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are free to
do whatever you wish and go wherever you like". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant
Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court in paragraph 20 has examined different
shades of the meaning of "instigation'. Para 20 reads as under:
20. 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.
1 6 . I n State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr. MANU/SC/0321/1994 :
(1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trail
for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact
induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in
domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not
be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty.
17. The Court in the instant case came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and
material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused-appellant having
abetted commission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn.
1 8 . In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human
sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently
in the same situation.
1 9 . This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
MANU/SC/1453/2009 : 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of
abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and
"goading". The court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or
encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is
different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such
cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a

09-04-2024 (Page 4 of 5) www.manupatra.com Gujarat National Law University Silvassa Campus

 person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate
or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
21. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is
clear that in order to convict a person under Section 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 this act must have been intended to
push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
22. In the light of the provisions of law and the settled legal positions crystallized by a
series of judgments of this Court, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and disposed of.
23. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant was released on bail. He is not
required to surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and he is set at liberty forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
24. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

09-04-2024 (Page 5 of 5) www.manupatra.com Gujarat National Law University Silvassa Campus