In Criminal Appeal No. 3578 of 2023 -SC- ‘Instigation’, ‘Mens Rea’ & ‘Proximity’ to the act of committing suicide required for abetment to suicide: Supreme Court
Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Pankaj Mithal [01-12-2023]

Read Order: Mohit Singhal & Anr V. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, December 5, 2023: The Supreme Court has set forth stringent requirements for establishing abetment to suicide, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of instigation, intent, and proximity.

Briefly stated, in the present case, the appellants were named as accused in the FIR for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was established that the third respondent, the widow of deceased Ashok Kumar, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000 from Sandeep Bansal @ Sandeep Lala, with the first appellant being the son of the said Sandeep Bansal. Subsequently, the widow alleged that while repaying the borrowed sum of Rs.60,000, Sandeep deducted Rs.15,000 towards interest, leading to a dispute. The third respondent's complaint outlined an incident, where the first appellant demanded money from her husband and allegedly assaulted him, as well as the third respondent and the deceased's mother. It was also alleged that the first appellant threatened to abduct the third respondent's daughter. Additionally, the prosecution relied on a suicide note purportedly written by the deceased, with the deceased taking his own life, due to alleged distress caused by the appellants' actions.

The Uttarakhand High Court, through its judgment, had rejected the plea to quash the offence.

The counsel representing the appellants asserted that even considering the case presented by the third respondent, the deceased was distressed due to the inability to repay a borrowed amount and had received a notice regarding a dishonoured cheque. It was argued that based on the suicide note and complaint of the third respondent, no offense punishable under Section 306 of the IPC could be established.

On the other hand, the counsel for the State endorsed the challenged judgment. They contended that the allegations in the suicide note were adequate to establish a prima facie case against the appellants. Furthermore, they emphasized that determining whether the offense under Section 306 of the IPC is established can only occur after evidence is presented.

The division bench referred to Section 107 of the IPC, which defines the abetment of a thing. It outlines various forms of abetment, including instigation, engagement in a conspiracy, and intentional aid by act or omission.

The division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal emphasized that, in the context of the case, the second and third clauses of Section 107 would not be applicable. The central question revolved around whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To satisfy the first clause of Section 107, there must be instigation by the accused prompting the deceased to commit suicide. The bench highlighted that the accused must possess mens rea, or a guilty mind, to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Additionally, the instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.

In the case at hand, the bench dismissed the notion that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The bench emphasized that the alleged acts of the appellants, including demanding payment and using abusive language, which reportedly occurred more than two weeks before the date of suicide, could not be construed as instigation. There were no allegations of any proximate act by the appellants in relation to the date of the suicide. Thus, the bench concluded that the acts of the appellants, as described, could not be considered as instigation to commit suicide, especially considering the deceased's own responsibility in the matter.

With the above observations, the Court held that the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC was not established against the appellants. As a result, it was deemed that the continuation of their prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Therefore, the Court decided to set aside the impugned judgment and quashed the summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, and allowed the appeal accordingly.