The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a comprehensive legal framework that addresses various criminal offenses, and among them is Section 306, dealing with the offense of abetment to suicide. Recent jurisprudential developments have brought this section into the spotlight, as the Supreme Court rendered a significant judgment quashing a case under Section 306.[1] This article seeks to delve into the nuances of Section 306 of the IPC, examining its essentials and interpreting the recent judgment that sheds light on the intricate facets of abetment to suicide.
The case revolved around the suicide of Ashok Kumar, to which his wife later brought the case to court alleging it to the abetment of suicide due to threats, assault, and a financial dispute between her husband and defendant, Sandeep Bansal, where the wife of the deceased claimed that the deceased was in stress due to several legal notices that were issued by the defendant regarding dishonored cheques, and distressed by these events, deceased committed suicide.
The question before the court was whether the appellants ‘instigated’ the deceased to commit suicide. The court observed in light of sections 306 and 107 of IPC, that to constitute abetment there must be an act that is intentional and done to push the person to a level where suicide becomes the only option. Later court in the case quashed the appeal and said that in order to prove the claim of abetment it is necessary to prove that suicide was in ‘closer proximity’ to the act done by the accused. If no link can be made between the accused act and the suicide done by the person, then no charges can be filed against the person. Now, to understand the case and its complexities it is important to delve deeper into this topic and understand the concepts and theories attached to it.
ORIGIN OF THE LAW
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was introduced in response to the historical prevalence of the ritualistic practice known as sati, an ancient cultural phenomenon deeply embedded in Indian society. Sati involved widows, often subjected to societal and familial maltreatment, immolating themselves as a perceived escape from the agony of widowhood. The legal provision was strategically crafted to address and curtail this entrenched societal ill, holding individuals accountable for abetting suicide.[2]
Historical records reveal a distressing tale of widows enduring systematic cruelty and relentless harassment, driving them to desperate measures. The evidentiary documentation highlights a troubling pattern wherein victims, compelled by dire circumstances, were coerced into ingesting lethal substances, ultimately resulting in their tragic demise.
Section 306 stands as a jurisprudential response to the exigencies of its time, exemplifying the evolving legal framework’s commitment to eradicating antiquated and injurious customs. It serves as a testament to the judiciary’s dedication to societal welfare, aiming to shield vulnerable individuals from the perils of cultural practices that compromise human dignity. The legislative intervention underscores the imperative of aligning legal mechanisms with societal progress, thereby fortifying the jurisprudential arsenal against the perpetuation of egregious traditions.
CONCEPT OF ABETMENT OF SUICIDE
“When you have said or done a thing, that fixes it, and you must take the consequences”
-The Red Queen to Alice
Abetment is a mental process of inciting or actively assistsing someone in performing a specific task[3] A person who does not himself commit a crime, may however command, urge, encourage,
induce, request, or help a third person to bring it about and thereby be guilty of the offense of
abetment.
Section 107 of IPC defines Abetment as, A person abets the thing or doing of the thing, who
[1] Instigates any person to do that thing
[2] Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
[3] Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing
Recent Supreme Court judgments have also emphasized the necessity of proving the accused’s guilty mind and direct instigation leading to the deceased’s suicide. Mere threats or angrily spoken words, without a clear link to the act of suicide, may not constitute the crime under Section 306 and Section 107. The court has quashed judgments when the accused’s actions were not in close proximity to the suicide, reinforcing the requirement for a direct and provable connection.
In the landmark judgment of M. Mohan v. State,[4] there must be a direct relationship between the accused’s crime and the act of committing suicide. If the direct link cannot be found in the case, the accused cannot be charged with abetment or instigation or any kind of assessment of the suicide of the person. Abetment, in this context, refers to any active proposal or assistance for the conduct of the crime.[5]
Abetment can be defined as the mental process of instigating a person to carry out any such act that leads to suicide, if happens the abettor shall be liable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for abetment of suicide and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
In the case of Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs the State of Maharashtra[6], it was ruled that a superior officer cannot be presumed to have a guilty mind or criminal intent under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment of suicide merely by assigning tasks to a subordinate or taking disciplinary actions, such as withholding salary. The court emphasized that the mere act of assigning work does not establish culpability unless there is evidence of harassment leading to the person being compelled to take their own life. Determining whether the deceased faced such harassment and was coerced into suicide poses a challenge for the court. Notably, Section 306 remains inadequately defined in legal proceedings.
abetment in cases of suicide involves a nuanced examination of the accused’s actions and their direct impact on the deceased’s decision to take their own life. The legal system requires a careful assessment of evidence to establish a clear link between the accused’s behavior and the act of suicide, ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld in such sensitive matters.
Top of Form
IINTERPRETATION OF ‘INSTIGATION’
Instigation literally means to provoke or incite an individual to commit an act that is prohibited by the law. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
[2001][7] ruled that instigation can be defined as acts on the part of the accused that led to the conditions where the person does not have any other options other than to commit suicide. Similarly, the case of B Sridevi v. State of Andhra Pradesh[8] gave a judgment that the proof of abetment is required in order to make the claim, and only workplace pressure or harassment will not constitute the offense of abetment to suicide.
Also, in the case of Ramesh Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujrat, it was held that mere spoken words with anger and not with intention of instigation cannot be considered as abetment to suicide to constitute the offense under section 306 of IPC
in the legal case Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)[9], the court deliberated on the meanings of “instigation” and “goading” by consulting dictionary definitions. It stressed that instigation requires a clear intent to provoke, urge, or encourage an individual to commit a specific act. Recognizing the subjective nature of suicidal behavior, the court acknowledged the diversity in individuals’ perceptions of self-esteem and self-respect.
The court concluded that a rigid formula for addressing such cases is impractical due to the unique nature of each situation. Suicidal tendencies vary, making it challenging to adopt a universal approach. The court emphasized the importance of deciding each case based on its specific facts and circumstances, advocating for a nuanced and context-sensitive legal approach.
To bring charges under these sections, there must be allegations that the accused either directly pushed the person toward suicide or was involved in a conspiracy that led to such a tragic outcome. In a specific case, the court delved into the evidence and discovered that the deceased struggled with mental health issues, leading to depression. Crucially, the court discerned that the accused had no intention of driving the deceased, an employee, to take such a drastic step.
This legal stance underscores the need for a careful examination of the accused’s intent, actions, and their impact on the deceased’s mental state. It reflects an understanding of the intricate interplay of factors contributing to suicide, emphasizing the importance of a case-specific analysis to ensure a fair and just legal outcome. In essence, this approach reaffirms a commitment to a legal system that recognizes the complexities of human behavior and mental health in cases involving the abetment of suicide.
Top of Form
SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION
The recent Supreme Court judgment on Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has highlighted the need for a nuanced examination of the legal landscape surrounding abetment to suicide. One key suggestion involves revisiting the mens rea standards essential for establishing guilt under this section. The court’s clarification on the mental state required for conviction is crucial in ensuring a fair and consistent application of the law. By providing clearer guidelines, lawmakers can help prevent potential miscarriages of justice and enhance the overall effectiveness of the legal framework.
Another imperative suggestion is to incorporate provisions in the law that specifically address cases involving mental health challenges. With an increasing awareness of mental health issues, it is essential to differentiate between intentional harm and situations where the accused may not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions. This tailored approach would align the legal system with contemporary societal values and foster a more empathetic understanding of individuals facing mental health struggles.
Public awareness campaigns emerge as a proactive measure to address the sensitivity of suicide cases. Educating society about the multifaceted factors contributing to suicide and the legal implications of abetment can dispel misconceptions and promote a more informed and compassionate approach. Such initiatives contribute to a broader societal understanding of the complexities involved, reducing stigma and fostering a supportive environment for those grappling with mental health issues.
Furthermore, specialized training for law enforcement agencies is essential in handling cases related to abetment to suicide. This training should encompass an understanding of the intricacies of mental health issues, ensuring thorough investigations and proper collection of evidence. By equipping law enforcement with the necessary skills and knowledge, the criminal justice system can operate more effectively and with greater sensitivity in cases involving allegations of abetment to suicide.
In conclusion, the recent judgment by the Supreme Court prompts thoughtful considerations for reforming Section 306 of the IPC. The suggested measures, including clarifying mens rea standards, incorporating mental health considerations, launching public awareness campaigns, and providing specialized training for law enforcement, collectively contribute to a more just and compassionate legal framework for addressing abetment to suicide in contemporary India.
[1] 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1035
[2] Pitta Isaac Newton, Abetment of Suicide (Section. 306 of Indian Penal Code), 4 INT’l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 4520 (2021).
[3] Dayakant Kevin Rai L., Critical Analysis on Abetment of Suicide u/s 306 of the IPC, 4 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL RSCH. 1 (2022)
[4] M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626
[5] Dayakant Kevin Rai L., Critical Analysis on Abetment of Suicide u/s 306 of the IPC, 4 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL RSCH. 1 (2022)
[6] Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 7 SCC 781
[7] Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618
[8] B. Sridevi v. State of A.P., 2021 SCC OnLine AP 4298
[9] 73 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1473 OF 2009
Author: Kritika Mishra
Juris Centre 