In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has dismissed a suicide abetment case, shedding light on the crucial criteria for convicting an individual under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, deliberating on the intricacies of Section 107 IPC which defines “abetment,” clarified that intentional encouragement leading to suicide must be meticulously planned and occur in close temporal proximity to the tragic event.
The court asserted, “To invoke the first clause of Section 107 IPC, the accused must engage in some form of instigation, demonstrating mens rea to drive the deceased to commit suicide. This act of instigation must be intense enough to leave the deceased with no option but to take their own life, and it must occur in close proximity to the actual suicide.”
Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, constituting the Supreme Court bench, presided over an appeal challenging a Uttarakhand High Court decision that rejected a plea to quash charges in a suicide case.
The case centered around Ashok Kumar’s suicide, allegedly prompted by threats, assault, and a financial dispute with Sandeep Bansal, the son of a money lender. The deceased’s widow had borrowed money from Bansal, and tensions escalated with a legal notice regarding dishonored cheques. Distressed by these events, Ashok Kumar reportedly took his own life on July 4, 2017.
Relying on a suicide note dated June 30, 2017, the prosecution pushed forward, but the High Court denied the plea to quash charges, allowing the case to proceed.
The pivotal question revolved around whether the appellants had indeed instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
Examining Sections 306 and 107 IPC, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of a specific act of instigation with mens rea, pushing the deceased to a point where suicide becomes the only viable option.
The court scrutinized the timeline of events, highlighting an incident of threat and assault on June 15, 2017, followed by a legal notice on June 27, 2017. The suicide note was written on June 30, 2017, and the suicide occurred three days later.
Crucially, the court observed that the alleged acts of the accused transpired over two weeks before the suicide, with no evidence of subsequent contact or instigation in close proximity to the tragic event.
The court concluded, “The alleged acts of the appellants cannot amount to instigation to commit suicide.” As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the summoning order was quashed, with the court deeming the continuation of the prosecution as “nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”
Case Reference: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3578 OF 2023
