INTRODUCTION
Today, I will discuss the case of Kanchan
Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, Criminal Appeal No.
1022 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) that provides for punishment in relation to abetment of
suicide.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 306 of IPC states that “if any
person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Now, what is abetment. It
has been explained in Chapter V of IPC (Sections 107 to 120). According to S.
107 of IPC, “a person abets the doing of a thing, who”: -
a. Instigates any person to do that thing.
b. Engages others in any conspiracy to do that
illegal thing.
c. Intentionally aids the doing of that thing.
Apart from explaining the meaning of abetment, S.
107 to S. 120 of IPC also explain the liability of the abettor and depending
upon the severity of commission of crime, the abettor could be held equally
liable as the main accused. Now, let us move further.
The facts of the case are not relevant for the
purposes of this show and hence, the same are not being discussed. In order to
understand S. 306 of IPC, let us peruse the pertinent observations by the Supreme
Court.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court observed that merely because a
person takes away his life in front of the house of the accused, that itself
will not indicate any relation of the accused with the deceased as “abetment
involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC.”
Secondly, the Court noted that “to proceed
against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active
act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option
and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide.”
Thirdly, the Court opined that vague and bald
allegations without fulfilling the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC would not
make a person liable for abetment of suicide.
Fourthly, the Court cited the case of Chitresh
Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605,
wherein it was observed that “there should be an intention to provoke,
incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused” and “each person’s suicidability
pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of
selfesteem and selfrespect.” The Court further observed that “it
is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with the cases of
suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.”
Fifthly, the Court also cited the case of Amalendu
Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, wherein it was
opined that the Courts must examine the facts and circumstances of the case
with diligence and weigh the evidence available on record to understand if any
cruelty or harassment has been meted out to the victim. There must be proof of
both direct and indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide and bald
allegations to such effect would not suffice. Further, the Court laid down following
guidelines in relation to S. 306: -
a. There must be a case of suicide
b. The accused/abettor must have played an active role
by instigating or doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
c. The act of abetment must be proved and
established by the prosecution to attract S. 306 of IPC.
And lastly, the Court cited the case of S.S.
Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another, (2010) 12 SCC 190,
wherein it was observed that “the intention of the legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”
I hope that the nature and the scope of S. 306 of
IPC is clear by now. So, what are my concluding remarks.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is important to understand that just because a
person has committed suicide does not mean that someone ought to be made
criminally liable. Peculiar facts and circumstances of each case are required
to be looked into and unless cogent evidence is available on record implicating
the accused and indicating his direct involvement in instigating a person to
commit suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
very good
ReplyDelete