EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SUICIDE NOTE

Introduction?

The term abetment literally means to encourage, support, or countenance by aid or approval, usually in wrongdoing. In Indian Criminal Law Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code talks about the stages of abatement which are mentioned herein below.

Abetting to do a thing or an act through :

• Instigating any person to do an act or thing
• Engaging in the conspiracy with one or more persons for doing of that thing ,illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing?
• Intentionally aiding , by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. ?

Abetment by instigation depends upon the intention or mens rea of the perpetrator not on the commencement of the act done by the person who has been abetted.?For covering abatement under criminal law the prosecution have to establish and prove instigation, illegal omission, intentional aid, wilful misrepresentation or by wilful concealment material fact which are bound to be disclosed and facilitation of the commission of the act whether priorly or at the time of the commission of that act.[(Praveen Pradhan vs state of Uttaranchal),?Sections 107 Indian Penal Code 1860]

Abetment of Suicide by the Accused and inference of Instigation?

The prosecution have to prove?that :

• The deceased or the victim have committed suicide.?
• The presence of instigation or abetment for the commission of suicide is commenced by the accused.?
• Direct involvement by the accused.?

In Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh it was laid by the Court that if the accused by his act or continuous course of conduct creates such circumstances that no other option is left with the deceased or the victim but to commit suicide, then such conduct or act may be inferred as instigation.Therefore, to establish the commission of abetment of suicide by a person the prosecution have to establish :

• Continuous irritation or annoyance by the accused towards the deceased through words, deeds or?wilful omission.
• Wilful silence until the deceased reacted, pushed or forced to commit suicide or move forward in direction to commit suicide resulting out from the words, deeds or?wilful omission of the accused.
• The element of mens rea or criminal intent to prompt, provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.?
• The presence of the mens rea is essential.?

There is a difference between intimidatory statement and intimidatory statement. The person to whom intimidatory statement is made may be frightened and may on receiving end or out of anger may retaliate. On the contrary the instigatory statement?fall within the category of goading and provoking (Jagannath vs State of West Bengal). ?

Hence, abetment involve the mental process of instigation, that is, intentionally adding certain things for doing anything. Where there is no actual involvement of intention or mens rea and positive act of instigation the accused cannot be held liable for suicide and the conviction cannot be sustained. (M. Mohan V. State)??

Instigation has to be gathered from the the circumstances of the case. In absence of direct evidence the prosecution have to establish and prove that there is direct nexus between suicide and instigation. Further in the accused have created such circumstances which led to the total frustration of the person and he/she finds it difficult to exist (Anil Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander).

Suicide note as a sole evidence?

If the suicide note held responsible an individual for the the cause of suicide resulting out of conspiracy, illegal omission in pursuance of conspiracy, intentionally (mens rea) aiding a the deceased to do an act or a thing, wilful concealment of material facts which the accused is bound to be disclose, misrepresentation and facilitate the commission of the act, all leading to suicide.The prosecution have to put all the direct and the indirect evidences on record to establish the case of abatement of suicide. In case failure to put the evidences on record, no offence under section 306 Indian Penal Code can be made out( V Padma Bai V. Inspector of Police & Devraj V State of HP).??????????????????????????????????????????

The principle of corroboration of evidence along with any dying declaration is a bare rule of prudence. The court of law must admit any statement made by the departed, indeed in the form of suicide notes, as far as the declaration is free from any inconsistency or infirmity which might produce a genuine question regarding its credibility. It's because the position of a dying man is regarded as solemn and serene, and due to this reason the Court of law accepts the veracity of his/ her declaration. In case of genuine mistrustfulness, the court can ask for any conformational substantiation and if the substantiation isn't presented, the court is in the power to disregard similar declaration.?

The case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. the State of Maharashtra highlighted and interpreted that “Section 32 does not speak of homicide alone but includes suicide also, hence all the circumstances which may be relevant to prove a case of homicide would be equally relevant to prove a case of suicide. Therefore, whatever the rules and procedures have been laid down to admit any other dying declaration, the same will be applied in the case of a suicide note as well. A suicide note, in the form of a dying declaration, can be taken as the sole evidence for convicting the accused, even without the presence of any corroborative evidence.?

The Indian law on the question of the nature and scope of dying declaration has made a distinct departure from the English law where only the statement which directly relate to the cause of death are admissible. The second part of cl.(1) of s.32,?viz, "the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question" is not to be found in the English Law.

Section 32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies. whether the death is a homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death, or relates to circumstances leading to the death.

One of the vital conditions for acceptability of dying declaration is a sound mental condition of the person writing or dictating a dying declaration. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Laxmi v. Om Prakash & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 2383," that if the court finds that the capacity of the maker of the statement to narrate the facts was impaired, or if the court entertains grave doubts regarding whether the deceased was in a fit physical and mental state to make such a statement, then the court may, in the absence of corroborating evidence lending assurance to the contents of the declaration, refuse to act upon it' .

However, if research is believed a person who intentionally kills himself, ie., commits suicide he/she is not of sound mental condition. Hence, how can a person's note who is not of sound mental health be treated as dying declaration under the Indian Evidence Act, when the major pre requisite of admissibility of dying declaration is 'the person making the dying declaration be in fit mental condition’.

Judicial Findings

National Commission Of Women vs State Of Delhi & Anr

Sunita then aged 21 years, committed suicide by consuming aluminum phosphide tablets on 14th April 2003. A suicide note found near her body was proved to be written in her hand. In the suicide note, she pointed out that she had taken tuition from the accused, Amit, at her residence in Rajgarh Colony and during that period had developed a deep friendship with him leading to physical relations as well. He also held out a promise of marriage but later backed off and when she remonstrated with him and reminded him of his promise he threatened to expose and defame her in case she insisted on meeting him. She stated in the suicide note that the accused continued to have sexual relations with her but also compelled her to have sexual relations with others as well. Frustrated and feeling exploited, Sunita thus committed suicide. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, by his judgment dated 21st April 2008, relying primarily on the dying declaration which was the suicide note, convicted the accused under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment.?

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Shahid and Ors.

Evidence as to the cause of death is relevant not only to the cause of death of the person making the statement but also to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death. it was indicates that she was violated and that she did not want to live a life of disgrace. The entire reading of the dying declaration does not absolve the accused though she said that they are not punished. Such a suicide note is to be treated as a dying declaration and is admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, of 1872.

Conclusion?

To bring home the offence under section 306 Indian Penal Code, the prosecution have?to should establish the mens rea, instigation on the part accused in corroboration with the evidence on record. Further, Dying Declaration principle give a vital?effect to establish the liability of accused person for the offence of abatement of suicide. All the liability under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code rests on the Evidence on record and the proving of mens rea.

________________________________________________________________

Praveen Pradhan vs state of Uttaranchal

Jagannath vs State of West Bengal?

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagannath vs State of West Bengal?

M. Mohan V. State?

Anil Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander

V Padma Bai V. Inspector of Police & Devraj V State of HP?

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. the State of Maharashtra

National Commission Of Women vs State Of Delhi & Anr

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Shahid and Ors.

?