REVERSAL OF CONVICTION DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN CHARGES OF CHEATING, ABETMENT OF SUICIDE AND RAPE

(Disclaimer: Trigger Warning
This article discusses topics related to suicide, which may be distressing for some readers. Reader discretion is advised. If you or someone you know is experiencing feelings of distress or thoughts of self-harm, please seek help immediately.

Helpline Information:
In India, you can contact the AASRA Foundation at 91-9820466726 or 91-9820466727. Their trained counselors are available 24/7 to provide confidential support.)

The Judgment in the Case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka Through SHO Kakati Police in Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012 was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, on 29th November 2024. The case primarily addresses issues related to Cheating (Section 417 IPC), Abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC), and Rape (Section 376 IPC) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It examines whether the Appellant committed cheating and Abetment of suicide by deceiving the Deceased with a promise of marriage leading to her suicide, and whether there was any evidence to support allegations of rape between them. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s conviction, finding insufficient evidence to support the charges.

BACKGROUND

In this Case, the Appellant was charged under Sections 417 (cheating), 376 (rape), and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Initially, the Trial Court acquitted the Appellant of all the charges. However, on Appeal by the State of Karnataka, the High Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 417 and 306 IPC, while acquitting him under Section 376 IPC. The conviction was based on charges of cheating and abetment of the suicide of a 21-year-old woman named Suvarna, who had been in love with the Appellant for the past eight years. The Appellant had promised to marry her before the jamaat (panchayat), but four months before the incident, he left the village and moved to Kakati, Karnataka.

On the evening of August 8, 2007, the Deceased, Suvarna, came to Kakati. When the Appellant refused to marry her, she went to the bus stand in Kakati, where she spent the night. The following morning, she consumed poison and attempted to end her life. Badshaha, a relative of the Appellant, found her lying at the bus stand and took her to the hospital on the morning of August 19, 2007. The sub-inspector of Kakati recorded her statement between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm and sent a requisition to the Executive Magistrate to record her dying declaration. The dying declaration was recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Belgaum, in the presence of a doctor, between 4:50 pm and 5:20 pm. The Deceased died in the hospital later that day on August 19, 2007.

The mother of the Deceased lodged an FIR on August 20, 2007, under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC at the Kakati Police Station, against the Appellant and his uncle. She alleged that the Appellant had deceived her daughter by promising to marry her and later refusing. After investigation, a Chargesheet was filed against the Appellant under Sections 417, 376, and 306 IPC, and he was arrested on August 20, 2007.

On April 13, 2010, the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, acquitted the Appellant of all charges, noting that the dying declaration did not mention any sexual relationship between the Appellant and the Deceased. The Deceased only stated that she consumed poison because he had refused to marry her. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that the Appellant had instigated her to consume poison or commit suicide. The statement of the Deceased’s mother revealed that it was the Deceased who was in love with the Appellant, not the other way around. The Deceased had insisted that her mother convince the Appellant to marry her.

The mother did not mention that the Appellant was in love with her daughter, and the Court found insufficient evidence to establish that the Appellant had a physical relationship with the Deceased or had promised to marry her before the panchayat. As a result, the Trial Court acquitted the Appellant, concluding that there was no evidence to support the claim that the Appellant had instigated or aided the Deceased in consuming poison or committing suicide.

HIGH COURT

On Appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 417 (cheating) and Section 306 (abetment of suicide), as it found that the Appellant’s refusal to marry Suvarna, after having promised to do so, contributed significantly to her taking the extreme step of ending her life. However, the High Court acquitted the Appellant of the charge under Section 376 (rape), as there was no evidence to prove sexual intercourse or any physical relationship between the Appellant and the Deceased.

ISSUES:

1.  Whether the Appellant committed an act of cheating by deceiving the Deceased into believing that he would marry her.

2. Whether the Appellant abetted the suicide of the Deceased

3. Whether there was any evidence to support allegations of rape or physical relationships between the Appellant and the Deceased.

CONTENTIONS OF BOTH PARTIES:

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The Appellant contended that there was no substantial evidence to prove that he cheated the Deceased or instigated her to commit suicide.He also mentioned that the High Court erred in reversing the TrialCourt’s acquittal as there was insufficient evidence produced to prove that he entered into a physical relationship with the Deceased or promised to marry her.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The Prosecution argued that the Appellant had promised to marry the Deceased and later deceived her, which led to the Deceased’s suicide. The Appellant refused to marry the Deceased after making promises that caused emotional distress within her which allegedly led the Deceased to take the extreme decision to end her life.

SUPREME COURT:

The Appellant filed an Appeal before the Supreme Court. The ApexCourt noted that “Abetment” of suicide involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person to commit suicide, and without a positive act on the part of the accused, there can be no instigation.The Court emphasized that there was no evidence to establish that the Appellant had intentionally caused or instigated the Deceased to consume poison.The Court also observed that there was no physical relationship between the Appellant and the Deceased, nor was there any promise to marry established with evidence.The Court held that the conviction for abetment of suicide was not substantiated, and the High Court’s decision was reversed. The Supreme Court further held that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations made against the Appellant. Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s conviction and upheld the Trial Court’s acquittal.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Supreme Court in this Case highlighted the crucial importance of substantive evidence to support allegations of cheating, abetment of suicide, and rape. The Court, after examining the facts and contentions, reversed the High Court’s conviction and upheld the acquittal of the Appellant, emphasizing the lack of evidence to substantiate the claims of instigating suicide or establishing any physical relationship. This Judgment reaffirms the need for clear and convincing proof before convicting an individual under serious charges.

Baddam Parichaya Reddy

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Associate