Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan acquitted a woman accused of abetting the suicide of her neighbour. The Bench held that the circumstances did not demonstrate the degree of instigation necessary to attract liability under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Observing that neighbourhood quarrels are a frequent aspect of community living, the Court clarified that for abetment of suicide to be established, the conduct must rise to a level where the victim is left with no reasonable choice but to take their life.

The case arose from an incident on 12 August 2008 in Vijaypur, Karnataka. Sarika, a 25-year-old student pursuing her Bachelor of Arts degree while also conducting tuition classes at home, set herself on fire following an altercation with her neighbour Geeta, wife of Raju Indikar. Sarika was admitted to the Government Hospital, Bijapur, with 58% burn injuries and provided a statement to Police Inspector Nagarjuna (PW-16), confirmed by medical staff to be fit for recording. In that statement, later exhibited as Ex. P-8, Sarika alleged sustained harassment over six months by Geeta, including insults about her unmarried status, repeated disturbances affecting her tuition work, and threats in the days leading up to the incident.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes U.P. State’s Refusal To Sanction Posts | Holds Selective Regularisation Of Similarly Situated Daily Wagers Violates Equity | Orders Regularisation In Higher Education Services Commission

Sarika recounted that on 10 August 2008, Geeta, accompanied by her sisters, entered her home, scolded her and her brother, and abused them verbally. Again, on 12 August 2008, Geeta and four others allegedly insulted Sarika and her mother Renuka, threatened them, and assaulted them in front of their home. Later that evening, feeling mentally distressed, Sarika poured kerosene on herself and ignited a match. Her mother, neighbours, and brother extinguished the fire, and she was transported to hospital. She succumbed to her injuries on 2 September 2008.

The investigating officer filed a chargesheet against five individuals: Geeta, Raju, Mala, Meena, and Suhasini. They were charged under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506, and 306 read with Section 149 IPC, along with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Twenty witnesses were examined, and several exhibits and material objects were placed on record.

The Trial Court acquitted accused 2 to 5 but convicted Geeta under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, sentencing her to five years’ imprisonment under IPC and life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act. On appeal, the High Court of Karnataka acquitted Geeta under the SC/ST Act for want of evidence, but upheld her conviction under Section 306 IPC, reducing her sentence to three years while maintaining the fine. Geeta challenged that finding before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined whether the facts established abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Bench observed: “Though ‘love thy neighbour’ is the ideal scenario, neighbourhood quarrels are not unknown to societal living. The question is whether on facts there has been a case of abetment of suicide?”.

The Court analysed testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including Sarika’s brother (PW-5) and her mother (PW-9), noting that their accounts largely reiterated the deceased’s complaint but were omnibus in nature. It recorded: “Taken at its highest, there is definitely 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.”.

Referring to earlier judgments, including Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the Court noted that words uttered in quarrel, such as “go and die,” are often casual in nature and do not by themselves establish abetment. It cited Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628, which held that Section 306 requires proof of specific abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. The Court reiterated from Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618: “A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”.

Summarising the position, the Bench stated: “Applying the tests laid down hereinabove, we are not able to persuade ourselves to hold that when the appellant’s family and the victim’s family had heated exchanges, there was any 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 we are not able to conclude that there was an instigation on the part of the appellant to such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide.”.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court | Appeal for Custodial Death Compensation Dismissed | Compensation Under 2019 Scheme Arises Only After Conclusive Finding of Unnatural Death

The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not satisfy the statutory requirements for conviction under Section 306 IPC. It held: “In view of what has been held above, we find that the appellant is not guilty of the offence under Section 306. We acquit her of the charge under Section 306. The net result is that, the appeal stands allowed and impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, Kalaburagi dated 27.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.3658 of 2011 is set aside.”

The Court further ordered that since the appellant was already on bail, her bail bonds stood discharged. Acquittals of the other accused and of charges under the SC/ST Act, which had already attained finality, remained unaffected. The decision left the appellant acquitted of all charges.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant(s): Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR; Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Advocate; Mrs. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Advocate; Mr. Jyotish Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Yash S. Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Advocate

For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR

Case Title: Geeta v. The State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1089
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2018
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan