JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 306 IPC

1.??? This Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of T of Delhi) had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this?? Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is?? impossible to lay down any straight jacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the?? basis?? of?? its?? own?? facts?? and?? circumstances.

2.??? In the case of 1 (2009) 16 SCC [email protected].(Crl.)No.7554 of 2019 Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306, IPC this Court has held as under :? “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it? in? order to find out whether? the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 13. In order to bring a 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 to 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 he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”

3.??? In the judgment in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr.3 this Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC.? Paragraph 25 of the judgment reads as under : “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing, act?? on? the? part? of? the? accused? to? instigate? or? aid? in? committing suicide,?? conviction?? cannot?? be?? sustained.?? The?? intention?? of?? the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

4.??? In the judgment in the case of? Rajiv? Thapar? &? Ors.? v.? Madan? Lal Kapur4 this Court has considered the scope of the provision under Section 482, Cr.PC and has laid down the steps which should be followed by the High Court to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing?? of?? proceedings?? in?? exercise?? of?? power?? under?? Section?? 482, Cr.PC.? Paragraph 30 containing the four steps read as under : “30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: (a) 30.1.Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(b) 30.2.Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would?? rule?? out?? the?? assertions?? contained?? in?? the?? charges?? levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?

(c) 30.3.Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material?? is?? such?? that?? it?? cannot?? be?? justifiably?? refuted?? by?? the prosecution/complainant?

(d) 30.4.Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

(e)30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience?? of?? the?? High?? Court?? should?? persuade?? it?? to?? quash?? such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482?? CrPC.?? Such?? exercise?? of?? power,besides?? doing?? justice?? to?? the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted?? in?? holding?? such?? a?? trial?? (as?? well?? as?? proceedings?? arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.”

5.??? In State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand @ Baliay on 20 September, 1977 [1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "The basic rule is bail, not jail, except-where there arecircumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court." The court has also held in the above decision that"At the same time any possibility of the abscondence or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station once every fortnight." In the present case, there have been no occurrences of non-cooperation from the applicant or no reported incidences of tampering with any thing or person related to the present matter. The applicant is willing to co-operate in the process of investigation as he would be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

6.??? Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001 - The Supreme Court of India has relied on the definition of Abetment of a thing as "A person abets the doing of a thing, who-first- Instigates a person to do that thing; or secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the over doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." In the present matter, there is no instance of any material on record to suggest that the applicant has directly or indirectly instigated, engaged with any other person in any conspiracy or intentionally aided the deceased that led the deceased to commit suicide.

7.??? Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2010 - Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." In the present matter, the facts and circumstances of the case indicate neither the element of mens rea nor actus reus to suggest that the applicant has caused the deceased to commit suicide.

?