LexKAMARUDDIN DASTAGIR SANADI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO KAKATI POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1269 : 2024 INSC 908 Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka Through SHO Kakati Police (Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012) 29 November 2024 [Pankaj Mithal* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant-accused and convicting him under Sections 417, 306 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107, 417 – When asked by the deceased, the appellant refused to marry her – Deceased committed suicide – On facts, whether the appellant, instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide: Held: No – Dying declaration of the deceased indicates that it was the deceased who was in love with the appellant and wanted to marry him – There was no evidence to prove any physical relationship between the two, promise to marry on the part of the appellant or that he was instrumental in instigating the deceased to consume poison or to commit suicide – When the appellant had left the village, it was the deceased who searched about him, traced him out and went after him – She called him and when they met, he refused to marry her and as her sentiments were hurt, she consumed poison – No evidence to prove that the appellant instigated or provoked the deceased to kill herself, rather the deceased herself carried poison in a bottle with a predetermined mind to positively get an affirmation from the appellant to marry her, failing which she would commit suicide – To convict a person for abetment of suicide u/s.306, there has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused to abet such a crime with an active or a direct act leading to the commission of suicide – On being asked by the deceased, the appellant had simply refused to marry her which is not a positive act on his part with any intention to abet the crime of suicide – No guilty intention or mens rea on part of the * Author 1270 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports appellant established – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 16, 17, 23, 30, 31] Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – In cases of marital discords – No offence u/s.306, unless guilty intention established: Held: Discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society and the commission of offence of suicide largely depends upon the mental state of the victim – Until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence u/s.306. [Para 25] Words and Phrases – “abetment”; “instigation” – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Abetment of a thing – Discussed. [Paras 21, 22, 23, 24, 26] Case Law Cited Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618; M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC 626; Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [2009] 15 SCR 836 : (2010) 1 SCC 707 – relied on. Prabhu v. State represented by Inspector of Police & Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 137 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Abetment of suicide; Abetment of a thing; “abetment”; “instigation”; Instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide; Dying declaration; Deceased in love with the accused; Broken relationships; Heart breaks; Cheating; No physical relationship; No promise to marry; Consumed poison; Refusal to marry; No guilty intention or mens rea; Active or a direct act leading to the commission of suicide; No positive act; Intention to abet the crime of suicide; Acquittal reversed; Discord, differences in domestic life. [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1271 Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka Through SHO Kakati Police Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2011 of the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in CRLA No.2806 of 2010 Appearances for Parties Shirish K. Deshpande, Sharanagouda Patil, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Jyotish Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant. Muhammad Ali Khan, A.A.G., Omar Hoda, Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Arjun Sharma, Kamran Khan, Ms. Gurbani Bhatia, D. L. Chidananda, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. The accused-appellant was charged under Sections 417, 376 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.1 The trial court acquitted him o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.