The Supreme Court reiterated that the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC is attracted if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement or incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal against the Allahabad High’s rejection to quash the criminal proceedings filed under Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra stated that “the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306… would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement or incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide.”

Advocates Gagan Gupta and Nikhil Jain appeared for the appellants and Advocates Shaurya Sahay and Aditya Kumar appeared for the respondents.

The case pertains to the suicide of an employee of a private company in a hotel room in Lucknow. In the First Information Report (FIR) filed after the suicide, it was alleged that the deceased was being forced to resign by company executives. The executives, which the FIR alleged were the instigators of the suicide, were the appellants before the Supreme Court. The Allahabad High Court in 2017 had refused to quash the criminal proceedings against them.

The test of culpability

The Bench said that incitement to commit suicide may arise from two broad categories. One, where the deceased had sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second, where the deceased had relations with the accused in their official capacity. “The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.”

The test to determine culpability under the provision “is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide.”

The Bench recognised that family members of a person who has committed suicide may decide to lodge a First Information Report but added that it is “ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.”

Unnecessary prosecutions under Section 306, according to the Bench, are the result of “inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide.”

The problem with abetment to suicide trials, the Bench said, was that the courts only look into the “factum of suicide and nothing more. "We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence and accusation.”

In the present case, the Bench concluded that the approach the High Court took while upholding the charges against the company executives “could be said to be incorrect.” The Bench was convinced that putting the accused on trial for abetment of suicide “will be nothing but abuse of process of law." The Court set aside the Order passed by the High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings against them.

Precedents on what constitutes abetment of suicide

The Supreme Court in M. Arjunan v. State (2019) stated that there are two necessary ingredients of Section 306, namely, the abetment and the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

The Court clarified that “the act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation or abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”

In Ude Singh And Ors. v. State of Haryana (2019), the Supreme Court the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide “there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide.” the Court said.

“In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.” it held in Ude Singh.

If a person who had committed suicide had been “hypersenstive” and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, “it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.”

However, if the accused by their acts and by continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within Section 306, the Court said.

Cause Title: Nipun Aneja And Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Neutral Citation | 2024 INSC 767]

Appearance:

Applicants: Advocates Gagan Gupta, Nikhil Jain, Divya Jain, Ananta Prasad Mishra

Respondents: Advocates Pramod Kumar Singh, Vijay Pal, Varinder Kumar Sharma

Click here to read/download the Order



Supreme CourtJustice JB PardiwalaJustice Manoj MisraAbetment of Suicide

Tushar Kohli