LexGEETA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 44 : 2025 INSC 1089 Geeta v. The State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2018) 09 September 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.306, IPC is sustainable; was the evidence against the appellant of such nature that the overt acts attributed to her left the deceased-victim with no option except to commit suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Ingredients of s.306, when not attracted – Deceased-victim and the first accused-appellant were immediate neighbours however, they were not on cordial terms and used to be at loggerheads – Case of the prosecution that victim took tuition classes in her house and that there used to be persistent noise coming from the house of the appellant and she repeatedly told the appellant to ensure that there was no noise as it disturbed her tuition – Victim had alleged that the appellant abused her by calling her a bitch and said that though she was 25 years of age, she was not married and hurled caste abuses too – Victim committed suicide – High Court confirmed the appellant’s conviction u/s.306, IPC, as recorded by the Trial Court however, she was acquitted for offence punishable u/s.3(2)(v), SC/ST Act – Challenge to: Held: 1.1 Appellant is not guilty of the offence u/s.306. [Para 24] 1.2 Neighbourhood quarrels are not unknown to societal living – They are as old as community living itself – Though there is evidence on record to show that over a period of few months the neighbours were at loggerheads – While the victim felt that her tuition classes were being disturbed, the appellant’s family have also had a grievance about the victim and her family scolding the children of the appellant’s household – Not only were there heated exchanges, but physical blows were also alleged to have been administered by the appellant’s party however, she was acquitted * Author [2025] 10 S.C.R. 45 Geeta v. The State of Karnataka for the offence punishable u/s.323 and even u/ss.504 and 506 – No appeal was preferred by the State. [Paras 15, 17] 1.3 The victim was a sensitive person and did not have any support in the fight against the first accused – As the first accused had support of her family, the victim felt miserable having felt that she lost the fight, which impulsively prompted her to take the extreme step of committing suicide, at the height of depressed mood. [Para 12] 1.4 Further, though the victim alleged that caste abuses were used, evidence was found lacking resulting in acquittal of all the five accused (the appellant and her four family members A2 to A5) on that score – The other four family members were acquitted of offence punishable u/s.306 also – Appellant herself was acquitted of offences like being a member of the unlawful assembly, rioting, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace – Those acquittals have attained finality – Acquittal for offence under the SC/ST Act has also attained finality. [Paras 13] 1.5 Furthermore, in order to bring out an offence u/s.306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by s.107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required – The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting s.306 – The harassment meted out to the victim should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to his/her life. [Paras 19, 20] 1.6 When the appellant’s family and the victim’s family had heated exchanges, there was no intention to abet or to cause any member of either family to take their own life – These quarrels occur in everyday life, and on facts, there was no instigation on the part of the appellant to such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide – Appellant acquitted of the charge u/s.306 – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 23, 24] Case Law Cited Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Another (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 438; Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another [2010] 10 SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628; Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [2009] 15 SCR 836 : (2010) 1 SCC 707; M. Mohan v. State [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC 626; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] Supp. 4 46 [2025
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.