What the Supreme Court held on Instigation and Abetment of Suicide

For an offence of abetment to suicide to be made out, there must be an active role played by the accused in the act of instigation or facilitation of the same, the Supreme Court held in a judgment passed on Friday.

. “In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.”

. While delivering its judgment in a criminal appeal, the Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and MR Shah clarified that an allegation of harassment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be sustained without a positive action proximate to the commission of suicide.

. “Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.”

. This appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which had upheld the conviction of the appellant, who was sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment for abetment to suicide.

. The Facts

. The complaint was filed by the father of the deceased. The son had left behind a suicide note attributing the taking of his own life to the behaviour of his father-in-law, sister-in-law, and the appellant, his brother-in-law.

. The suicide note stated that the three persons falsely alleged that the deceased had made dowry demands; on the basis of these allegations, a Panchayat was held in the village where they lived in September 2001. The appellant, in addition to making the said allegations, also slapped the deceased at the Panchayat.

. The note went on to state that the deceased received continual threats from the accused persons, who also threatened to falsely implicate his family for the offence of demanding dowry. Unable to endure the threats, the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide, the note stated. The suicide was committed in February 2002.

. The trial court convicted the appellant, his father, and his sister under Section 306 of the IPC, awarding five years’ imprisonment to the two men and a three-year term to the appellant’s sister.

. Aggrieved by the judgment, the accused persons approached the High Court, which acquitted the father and the sister, but upheld the appellant’s conviction. This judgment was appealled before the Supreme Court.

. The Verdict

. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the provisions relating to abetment of suicide, more particularly, the definition of “instigation”. Relying on a precedent, the Court observed,

. “Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.”

. The Court also noted that the Panchayat and the commission of suicide were five months apart, and there is no proximity between what transpired at the Panchayat and the suicide. The Court also mentioned that a sole incidence of slapping cannot be held to be a valid ground for instigation and abetment.

. It was also observed that the evidence does not show that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held guilty of abetting the suicide, the Court held.

. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the conviction of the appellant set aside.

. Read the Judgment:

What the Supreme Court held on Instigation and Abetment of Suicide

Shruti Mahajan

Related Stories