‘Abetment Of Suicide’

 

The Supreme Court has stated that it is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. 

 

IN THE Judgement of the case –Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh , delivered on January 17, 2025, Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice K.V. Viswanathan at the Supreme Court , have been quite critical of adoption of very casual approach by the investigating agencies and trial courts by mechanically framing charge of instigating suicide under section 306 of IPC and the Court has called for exercise of great caution and circumspection and not to follow a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies, in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of section 306. The SC has stated that it is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution.

 

Through this appeal the judgement and order of July 25, 2023 in criminal revision 1142 of 2023, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has been challenged, thereby the HC has declined the prayer of the appellant to discharge him from the offence under section 306 of the IPC and maintained the charges as framed by the Trial Court on February 28, 2023. On December 31,2022, a FIR was registered at the Police Station, Maingaon on the information of Dharmendra. The informant stated that his brother Bhagwan Singh was residing near his house along with his son Ranjeet Chauhan; that on October 11, 2022, Ranjeet had left home around 10 am on his motorcycle to go to the farm; that when he did not return home till around 2 pm he called him, but he got no response; but his nephews – Shivan Chauhan and Kuldeep Chauhan started searching for Ranjeet and while searching they went towards Rangaon, then they found a motorcycle parked on the side of the road and when they searched nearby, around 6 pm in the evening they found Ranjeet hanging on a rope noose from a tree on the bank of Borgaon drain about 100 meters away from the motorcycle.

 

The informant further stated that the he informed Bhagwan Singh, the father of Ranjeet Singh. That during inquest under section 174 CrPC, a written suicide – note and a mobile were found. The suicide – note mentioned about the deceased being harassed by the appellant-Mahendra Awase. Statements of witnesses were recorded. A chargesheet came to be filed on January 21, 2023. The chargesheet mentioned that the appellant had committed offence under section 306 of the IPC. Apart from the suicide note, it further transpired that statement of witnesses were recorded to the effect that the deceased was staying disturbed since last few months and when asked, he had mentioned to them that Mahendra Awase, the appellant was harassing him with respect to repayment of a loan, which one Ritesh Malakar had taken from Shree Saakh Co-Khargone Co-operative Society Ltd. In order to bring the 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 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.

 

Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before his conviction under section 306 IPC for instigating suicide. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case –Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh-(2001) 9 SCC 618, it has been held after examining the various shades of the meaning of “instigation”, that: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge, forward, provoke, incite or encourage ‘to do an act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigation, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out.

 

The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts of omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” In the said case, the SC came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record where from an inference of the appellant –accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant’s wife therein) may necessarily be drawn. The Supreme Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly, re-iterated the higher threshold mandated by law for section 306 (Now section 108 read with 45 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) to be attracted.

 

They however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met, should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals only to assuage the immediate feelings distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. The Supreme Court has held that the case against the appellant is groundless for framing of a charge under section 306. Hence, the Court discharged the appellant from the proceedings of the Sessions case 19/2023 pending on the file of the trial court, after quashing and setting aside those proceedings. The Supreme Court also allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court on July 25, 2023 in revision.