The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that routine neighbourhood quarrels cannot be treated as a crime of abetment to suicide, stressing that punishing one neighbour for another’s decision to take their life over heated exchanges does not meet the threshold of law.
The observation came as the court acquitted a Karnataka woman who had been convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after her 25-year-old neighbour set herself on fire, allegedly unable to bear constant fights and bickering.
Overturning the rulings of both the trial court and the Karnataka high court, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan said abetment to suicide requires clear intent or instigation by the accused, leaving the victim with no choice but to take the extreme step.
“Though ‘love thy neighbour’ is the ideal scenario, neighbourhood quarrels are not unknown to societal living. They are as old as community living itself,” the bench observed.
The case dates back to August 12, 2008, when the victim, a resident of Vijaypur, succumbed to burn injuries after dousing herself in kerosene. In her dying declaration, she named five neighbours, accusing them of harassment and verbal abuse for scolding their children.
While the trial court acquitted four of them, it convicted one woman, Geeta, holding that her words and actions provoked the victim into suicide. It sentenced Geeta to five years in jail under Section 306 IPC, and since as the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, also awarded her life imprisonment under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
{{/usCountry}}While the trial court acquitted four of them, it convicted one woman, Geeta, holding that her words and actions provoked the victim into suicide. It sentenced Geeta to five years in jail under Section 306 IPC, and since as the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, also awarded her life imprisonment under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
{{/usCountry}}On appeal, the Karnataka high court set aside her conviction under the SC/ST Act but upheld the Section 306 charge, reducing the sentence to three years.
The Supreme Court, however, found the evidence insufficient to prove abetment. “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,” the bench said.
Justice Viswanathan, writing the judgment, posed the central question: “We are only to examine whether, taking the prosecution case at its highest, conviction of the appellant under Section 306 could be sustained. Is the evidence against the appellant of such nature that the overt acts attributed to her left the victim with no option except to commit suicide? We think not.”
The court acknowledged that the families had been “at loggerheads” for months. The victim, who worked as a private tutor, frequently scolded her neighbours for disturbing her classes. The accused’s family, in turn, resented the scolding of their children and, on occasion, even resorted to physical blows.
In its April 2018 judgment, the Karnataka high court had noted that the disputes stretched over six months before culminating in the suicide. It described the victim as an “educated and accomplished woman” who “could not sustain the constant harassment” and took the extreme step.
But the Supreme Court reiterated that conviction under Section 306 requires proof of active instigation or aid. Citing earlier precedents, it said: “A word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”