2024 (12) TMI 1529 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of application preferred by the appellants seeking discharge from the charges punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 - instigation or abetment of suicide - proximate cause linking their actions to the deceased s decision to commit suicide - whether the appellants were guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? HELD THAT - The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act direct or indirect on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This Court in the case of S.S. CHHEENA VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN AND ORS. 2010 (8) TMI 1189 - SUPREME COURT had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential for abetment as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Therefore without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide conviction cannot be sustained. This Court further 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 of IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. More recently in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat 2024 (12) TMI 1527 - SUPREME COURT this Court has relied on S.S. Chheena to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law that is deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide would remain unfulfilled. This Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. However it has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person. The High Court observed that there is no allegation about any harassment or cruelty meted out by the appellants to the deceased in the Accidental Death Report however held that the allegations in the FIR could not be overlooked and the Accidental Death Report and the statements made in the Accidental Death enquiry would be a matter of trial. The High Court also took note of the disputed date of the mahalokadalat but held that incorrect mentioning of the date of the mahalokadalat in the FIR would not be a ground to discharge the appellants considering the state of mind of the complainant the deceased s mother. The prosecution has failed to prima facie establish that the appellants had any intention to instigate or aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide. No doubt that a young woman of 25 years has lost her life in an unfortunate incident. However in the absence of sufficient material to show that the appellants had intended by their words to push the deceased into such a position that she was left with no other option but to commit suicide continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants would result in an abuse of process of law and as such it is required to allow the appeal. Conclusion - Mere harassment or a time gap between alleged instigation and suicide weakens the prosecution s case. Mens rea and a direct or indirect act of instigation are crucial for sustaining charges of abetment to suicide. The necessity of a direct link and proximity between the accused s actions and the suicide for a charge under Section 306 IPC reiterated. Appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issue considered in this judgment was whether the appellants were guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court examined whether the appellants' actions amounted to instigation or abetment of suicide, and whether there was a proximate cause linking their actions to the deceased's decision to commit suicide.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The legal framework involved Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC. Section 306 pertains to the abetment of suicide, requiring proof of instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide. Section 107 defines abetment as instigating, engaging in a conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the commission of an act. The Court relied on precedents such as S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., and Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab, which emphasize the need for a direct link between the accused's actions and the suicide.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Court interpreted that for a charge under Section 306 IPC to be sustained, there must be a clear mens rea and a direct or indirect act of instigation or aid leading to suicide. The Court emphasized the necessity of proximity between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide, as well as the presence of a deliberate intention to provoke the suicide.

Key evidence and findings:

The Court noted the timeline of events: the alleged instigation occurred during a mahalokadalat on 17th February 2015, while the suicide took place on 20th March 2015. This gap of over a month weakened the prosecution's claim of a direct link between the appellants' actions and the suicide. Additionally, the initial Accidental Death Report did not mention any harassment or instigation by the appellants, and the FIR was lodged five days after the incident, raising questions about its credibility.

Application of law to facts:

The Court applied the principles established in previous judgments, noting that the time gap between the alleged instigation and the suicide was significant enough to dissolve any proximate link. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of mens rea or any direct act of instigation by the appellants that would compel the deceased to commit suicide.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The appellants argued that the FIR was an afterthought and that there was no immediate instigation. They emphasized the time gap and the lack of evidence of harassment in the initial report. The prosecution contended that there was sufficient material to proceed against the appellants, but the Court found this unconvincing due to the lack of proximity and evidence of intent.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of abetment to suicide against the appellants. The significant time gap and lack of evidence of direct instigation led the Court to determine that the appellants could not be held responsible for the deceased's suicide.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court reiterated the necessity of a direct link and proximity between the accused's actions and the suicide for a charge under Section 306 IPC. It emphasized that mere harassment or a time gap between alleged instigation and suicide weakens the prosecution's case. The judgment reinforced the principle that mens rea and a direct or indirect act of instigation are crucial for sustaining charges of abetment to suicide.

The final determination was that the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment and the trial court's order were quashed, and the appellants were discharged from the charges. The Court found that continuing the prosecution would constitute an abuse of the legal process due to insufficient evidence linking the appellants to the suicide.