KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 01-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 329 : 2024 INSC 156
Kumar @ Shiva Kumar 
v. 
State of Karnataka
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1427 of 2011)
01 March 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant was convicted for the offence u/s. 306 IPC by the trial 
Court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. Whether 
the prosecution proved the charge of abetment to commit suicide 
u/s. 306 IPC against the appellant.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Prosecution case was that appellant 
was earlier residing in the house of the victim-deceased X 
as a tenant – It was alleged that appellant threatened victim 
to marry him when she was returning home after dropping 
children of her sister at school – Thereafter, she consumed 
poison in the house – Consequent to which, she died in the 
hospital – Trial Court convicted appellant u/s. 306 IPC – His 
conviction was upheld by the High Court – Propriety:
Held: The evidence on record, not only reveal glaring inconsistencies 
but also gaping holes in the version of the prosecution – That 
apart, there are material omissions too – PW-1 is the father and 
the first informant – According to him, he used to live in the same 
house as the deceased – On the fateful day, he had gone out of 
the house at 7:00 AM in the morning and returned back to the 
house at 10:00 AM and found that his daughter X was admitted 
to a nursing home for consuming poison – Whereas, PW-2, sister 
of deceased deposed that their father was living separately with 
another woman outside marriage – She also stated that she saw 
her father in the Hospital on the second day of hospitalization of 
the deceased – If the version of PW-2 is to be believed then the 
evidence of PW-1, the first informant, cannot be accepted – Both 
PW-1 and PW-2 claimed that the deceased had told them about 
the harassment meted out to her by the appellant fifteen days prior 
to the incident – However, neither of them confronted the appellant 
nor lodged any complaint before the police – According to PW-4 
330
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(another sister of deceased), the deceased X was taken to the 
nursing home only after 11:00 to 11:15 AM – This again contradicts 
the statement of PW-1 that when he had come back home on the 
fateful day at 10:00 AM, his daughter X was already taken to the 
nursing home – Also, it was stated in FIR that neighbours had 
noticed through window that X was lying unconscious – Only two 
of the neighbours were examined and even they were declared 
hostile – No other neighbours were examined by the police – There 
is no explanation by the prosecution for such glaring omission – 
Again, according to the informant PW-1, it was the neighbours 
who had first seen the deceased through the window lying on the 
floor in pain with the phone continuously ringing – It is not at all 
believable that when the receiver was hanging (as has come out 
from the evidence of PW-4), how the phone could go on ringing 
continuously – Adverse inference has to be drawn from such 
glaring contradictions and omissions – Further, the doctors who 
first treated X were not examined, they could have thrown light 
whether intake of Organophosphate compound was by way of 
injection (there were multiple injection marks present over front of 
both elbows of X) or consumed orally – There was no recovery of 
any syringe or container or bottle containing the pesticide – There 
is no answer as to why there was no investigation in this regard 
–  There are no evidence on the basis of which the appellant can 
be held guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased. [Paras 23, 
24, 25, 30, 46]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Instigation – Meaning of:
Held: Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued 
course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with 
no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may 
be inferred – A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without 
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to 
be instigation. [Para 34.1]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 –  Direct or indirect act(s) of 
incitement to the commission of suicide:
Held: It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment 
of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of 
incitement to the commission of suicide – Merely on the allegation 
of harassment without there being any positive action proximate 
to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused 

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