Mere Cruelty Does Not Amount to Abetment of Suicide: Karnataka High Court Overturns Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC

"In absence of direct instigation or mens rea, cruelty alone cannot lead to conviction for abetment of suicide", Karnataka High Court, in a significant verdict delivered by Justice G. Basavaraja in Sri Channappa v. State of Karnataka, partly allowed a criminal appeal challenging a dual conviction under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. While confirming the trial court’s conviction under Section 498A IPC for cruelty towards the wife, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the required legal ingredients of abetment.

“This Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code,” observed Justice Basavaraja, underlining that the legal threshold to convict someone for abetment of suicide is far higher than merely proving matrimonial cruelty.

“Instigation must be direct and intentional – Mere abusive conduct falls short of abetment”

The case revolved around tragic allegations that Roopa, the wife of the appellant Channappa, had committed suicide by hanging between 31st October and 1st November 2013, after allegedly killing her daughter. The prosecution contended that her suicide was the result of years of abuse, neglect, and violent behaviour inflicted by her husband, including verbal threats telling her to "go die by hanging or pouring kerosene."

However, the High Court drew a clear line between cruelty and criminal abetment to suicide. “There has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence… It also requires an active or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, leaving no other option,” the Court ruled, relying on a series of binding precedents from the Supreme Court including Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, M. Arjunan v. State, and Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab.

Quoting the Supreme Court in Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., the Court reminded that “casual remarks in the heat of a quarrel” like ‘go and die’ cannot be construed as instigation unless accompanied by clear and demonstrable intent.

“Cruelty Established Beyond Doubt – Conviction Under Section 498A Stands Firm”

While the Court found no legal basis to uphold the conviction under Section 306 IPC, it was categorical in affirming the guilt of the appellant under Section 498A IPC. “The trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A,” the judgment stated.

The Court relied on testimonies of several prosecution witnesses including the mother (PW1), father (PW4), and minor son (PW5) of the deceased, all of whom consistently deposed that Channappa routinely assaulted and abused Roopa under the influence of alcohol. His addiction, illicit relationship, refusal to pay school fees for his children, and threats of suicide were all part of a sustained pattern of cruelty.

Even Exhibit P15 – a formal police complaint filed by Roopa six months before her death – documented the mental and physical torture she was subjected to. “The accused undertook before the police not to assault or abuse his wife in future,” the Court noted, affirming that cruelty was not only proven but was on record prior to the suicide.

The Court, however, rejected allegations of dowry demand for lack of evidence. “Since the date of marriage in 2006 till the date of incident, no complaint was filed alleging dowry harassment,” the judge observed. The Investigating Officer had not framed charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act either, and no documents were produced in support of the claim that Rs. 2,00,000 was given as dowry.

“No Further Imprisonment – Time Already Served Suffices”

Considering that the appellant had already undergone two years and ten months in judicial custody—exceeding the two-year sentence under Section 498A—the Court directed that no further imprisonment was required. “The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused shall be given set-off towards the punishment imposed herein,” Justice Basavaraja directed.

A Judgement Rooted in Legal Precision and Constitutional Caution

This ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s careful distinction between domestic cruelty, which is deplorable and punishable under Section 498A, and the graver offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, which demands a more direct and intentional instigation.

“To sustain a conviction under Section 306, mere harassment or cruelty is not enough,” the Court reiterated. “The prosecution must prove a clear, proximate link between the accused’s conduct and the victim’s decision to end their life. That threshold was not met in this case.”

Date of Decision: 18 December 2025