Direct incitement essential to charge abetment of suicide
The ingredients to constitute an offence, the abetment of suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code ( 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, reiterates the Supreme Court (SC) in Nipun Aneja And Ors v State of Uttar Pradesh [2024 INSC 767].
Company officials charged with Section 306 IPC
In this case, the offence of abetment of suicide of an employee of a private company in a hotel room in Lucknow was charged against the company executives who allegedly forced the deceased to resign from the company.
When the incitement to commit suicide arises
The SC says that the incitement to commit suicide may arise from following two broad categories.
- One is that where the deceased had sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused which involves more expectations and
- the other is where the deceased had relations with the accused in their official capacity, in which the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.
Precise test to determine culpability
The precise test to determine culpability under the provision is to make an endeavour to ascertain, based on the materials on record, whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequence of the victim committing suicide.
The SC points out that the problem with abetment to suicide trials is that the courts only look into the factum of suicide and nothing more.
Judgements relied on by SC
The SC relied on M. Arjunan v State [AIR 2019 SC 43] which states 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.
Another case that the SC relied on is the Ude Singh & Others v State of Haryana [AIR 2019 SC 4570], which says that the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible when determining the culpability and in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide.
If the deceased was hypersensitive no such charge survives
If a person who had committed suicide had been hypersensitive 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 in perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within Section 306, of the IPC.
Reference
- Nipun Aneja And Ors v State of Uttar Pradesh [2024 INSC 767]
