GANGULA MOHAN REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 05-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 1 S.C.R. 7 
GANGULA MOHAN REDDY 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2002) 
JANUARY 5, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND A. K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss. 306 and 107 - Abetment to suicide -
HELD: c 
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person 
or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing - There has 
to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence - Without a 
positive act on the parl of the accused to instigate or aid in 
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 
The appellant was convicted by the trial court uls 306 
IPC on the allegation that his farm labour (deceased) 
committed suicide because of the harassment meted out 
D 
to him by the appellant. The prosecution case was that 
the appellant, two days prior to the incident, leveled an 
E 
allegation of theft of ornaments against the deceased; 
that the appellant had also demanded from the deceased 
Rs.70001- which was given to him as advance at the time 
when he was kept in employment. The conviction was 
affirmed by the High Court. 
F 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was 
contended for the appellant that the conviction of the 
appellant was unsustainable as no ingredients of offence 
punishable uls 306 IPC were made out. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Abetment involves a mental process of 
7 
G 
H 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 1 S.C.R. 
A instigating a person or intentionally aiding a 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. [Para 20) (14-G] 
8 
1.2. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of 
the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to 
convict a person u/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 this act must have been intended 
C to push the deceased into such a position that he 
committed suicide. [Para 21) [14-H; 15-A-B] 
1.3. In the instant case, the deceased was 
undoubtedly hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, 
o discord and differences which happen in day-to-day life. 
Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the 
other. Different people behave differently in the same 
situation. In the light of the provisions of law and the 
settled legal positions crystallized by a series of 
E judgments of this Court, the conviction of the appellant 
cannot be sustained. [Para 18 and 22] [14-D; 15-8-C] 
Mahendra Singh & Another v. State of MP. 1995 Supp. 
(3) SCC 731; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 
9 SCC 618; State of West Bengal v. Ori/al Jaiswal & Another. 
F (1994) 1 SCC 73; and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. 
of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
1995 Supp. (3) sec 731 relied on 
para 13 
G 
20011 9 sec 618 
relied on 
para 15 
(1994) 1 sec 73 
relied on 
para 16 
2009 (11) SCALE 24 
relied on 
para 19 
H 
GANGULA MOHAN REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
9 
PRADESH 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
A 
No. 1301 of 2002. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.3.2002 of the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 
1039 of 1996. 
D. Ramakrishna Reddy (for T. Anamika) for the Appellant. 
I. Venkatanarayana, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Singh, Bachita 
Barua (for T.V. George) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
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. The appellant was convicted by the Assistant 
D 
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. 
E 
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 
F 
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.