Giving a new twist to the law on the issue, the Delhi High Court has recently observed that if a “lover” dies by suicide due to “love failure”, the woman cannot be held responsible
By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
The case in question relates to an FIR which was registered by a man alleging that a man and a woman had abetted his son’s suicide. He alleged that the woman was in a romantic relationship with the deceased while the man was a common friend. The matter was dealt with by a single-judge bench of Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court. The Court held: “If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer, respectively, cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide. For the wrong decision taken by a man of weak or frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide.”
The deceased boy’s mother had found a “suicide note” along with the boy’s body in which he had written that he was ending his life because of the woman and the man, the bail applicants.
Abetment of suicide is defined under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which states that if any person commits suicide, the person found to have abetted the commission of suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine. The term “abetment” has been defined by the courts is several cases. The Supreme Court in multiple cases has defined the “essential ingredients” for an offence to qualify as an abetment of suicide. These are:
- There must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of an offence of suicide.
- Mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide.
The case under discussion is not the only one wherein the courts have dismissed allegations of abetment of suicide. In October 2022, while acquitting a husband and mother-in-law in a suicide and dowry harassment case, the Supreme Court held: “There has to be evidence of continuous harassment, but there should be cogent evidence to establish a positive action by the accused, which should more or less be proximate to the time of occurrence, which action can said to have led or compelled the person to commit suicide.”
On the other hand, in another case in 2019, the Supreme Court had upheld the conviction of a group of men who had been continually harassing an 18-year-old girl, who finally committed suicide after no action was taken despite multiple complaints. The Court, while noting that the girl had “cried all night” after repeated bouts of harassment and “indecent behaviour”, and had threatened to commit suicide if the accused did not stop the harassment, held: “If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide.”
The Court also held that “abetment” in order to be a crime must involve a mental process of instigating a person into doing something. As per the rulings of the Court, “a person abets the doing of a thing when:
- he instigates any person to do that thing; or
- he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or
- he intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
An analysis of all the rulings given by the courts show that “instigation” is an important pre-requisite to the offence of abetment. The word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide.
In the case of an accusation of abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is 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 can only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case and there can be no “one size fits all” formula to decide such cases.
An important element that needs to be seen in such cases is the “intent” of the accused. The question of bad intention on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused, and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide.
Another famous case that involved alleged abetment of suicide was that of actress Jiah Khan wherein actor Sooraj Pancholi was accused for abetting the suicide attempt of the actress, but was later acquitted as the evidence on record did not meet the necessary ingredients of “proximity”, “action”, “instigation”, or “intent”.
In the recent case, the High Court has taken special note of the fact that “prima facie” from the WhatsApp chats placed on record, it appeared that the deceased was of “sensitive nature and constantly threatened” the female applicant of ending his life whenever she refused to talk to him. “It is correct that the deceased had written the name of the applicants in suicide note, but, in the opinion of this court, there is nothing mentioned, as to the nature of threats in the alleged suicide note written by the deceased of such an alarming proportion so as to drive a ‘normal person’ to contemplate suicide,” the High Court said. The High Court also said that prima facie the alleged suicide note “only expressed a state of anguish” of the deceased towards the applicants, but it “cannot be inferred that the applicants had any intention”, that led the deceased to commit suicide.
“The allegation with respect to applicants teasing the deceased in regards to the failure of his romantic relationship with the (female) applicant…however, does not appear to be instigation which would amount to abetment of suicide in terms of Section 306 IPC. The factum of the alleged suicide note and whether there was any instigation by the applicants will be seen in trial,” the High Court underscored.
The father of the deceased had alleged that a scuffle took place between the deceased and the applicants after he saw them together and asked why they were meeting. During the ensuing altercation, the deceased sustained injuries and the applicants allegedly damaged his car by throwing bricks. It was also said that while the deceased was leaving the place, the applicants allegedly instigated him by saying they had made “physical relations with each other and will get married soon”.
While the accused woman argued that she had been falsely implicated, the police alleged that offence committed by the two applicants is “heinous in nature” and the names of both the applicants were written in suicide note, because of whom the deceased died by suicide. The police also said that the CCTV footage from the location where the deceased had met with the applicants was also obtained in which the deceased and the male applicant can be seen in a scuffle. However, the High Court granted bail to the accused, saying that the custodial interrogation of the applicants was not required.
These rulings by the courts are definitely a big sigh of relief for all those who are traumatised due to being impleaded in false cases of abetment to suicide by the kin of the deceased. The courts are leaving no stone unturned to sift the chaff from the grain and the triple tests of “intent”, “proximity” and “action” is being employed to ensure that the true facts of such suicide cases are brought into the open and justice is truly served.
—The writer is an Advocate-on-Record practicing in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi