Supreme Court on Abetment of Suicide under Section 306 of IPC

 

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.