Neighbourhood Fights Not Abetment to Suicide, Rules Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Woman Convicted of Abetment to Suicide

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday delivered a significant ruling that routine neighbourhood quarrels cannot be equated with abetment to suicide. The Court acquitted a Karnataka woman, Geeta, who had previously been convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly driving her neighbour to suicide.

---

Case Background

The case dates back to August 12, 2008, when a 25-year-old woman from Vijaypur set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene and later succumbed to her injuries. In her dying declaration, she named five neighbours, alleging harassment and constant quarrels over scolding their children.

While the trial court acquitted four of the accused, it convicted Geeta under Section 306 IPC, sentencing her to five years in prison. Since the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, Geeta was also convicted under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, leading to a life sentence.

---

High Court Proceedings

On appeal, the Karnataka High Court (April 2018) set aside Geeta’s conviction under the SC/ST Act but upheld the charge under Section 306 IPC. However, it reduced her sentence from five years to three years, citing prolonged neighbourhood disputes that allegedly pushed the victim towards suicide.

---

Supreme Court’s Observations

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan overturned the lower courts’ decisions, holding that routine fights and verbal spats cannot amount to abetment to suicide.

The Court emphasized that to convict under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear intent or active instigation, leaving the victim with no choice but to take their life. The justices observed:

• “Though ‘love thy neighbour’ is the ideal scenario, neighbourhood quarrels are not unknown to societal living. They are as old as community life itself.”

• “We are not able to persuade ourselves to hold that heated exchanges between the families amounted to instigation to commit suicide.”

---

Key Legal Principle Reaffirmed

Justice Viswanathan, writing the judgment, posed the crucial legal question:

“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 cited established precedents that “a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion, without intent to cause suicide, cannot amount to instigation.”

---

Broader Context

The Court noted that the victim was an educated and accomplished woman, working as a private tutor, who frequently scolded her neighbours for disturbing her classes. In retaliation, the accused’s family resented the behaviour, leading to quarrels and even occasional physical altercations.

Despite this history of disputes spanning six months, the Supreme Court clarified that personal friction and harassment, unless linked to direct instigation, cannot be criminalised as abetment to suicide.

---

Conclusion

This ruling underscores a vital principle of criminal law: conviction for abetment to suicide requires proof of clear intent and instigation, not merely strained relations or everyday quarrels. The judgment provides much-needed clarity in cases where domestic or neighbourhood disputes lead to tragic consequences but lack the threshold of criminal culpability under Section 306 IPC.

---