Supreme Court on Employers Facing Allegations of Abetment to Suicide of Employees: Sentimental Ties Cannot be Equated with Professional Relationships

Brief

Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines for dealing with cases of abetment to suicide. The test established in this case would help the courts in navigating matters involving section 306 IPC (section 108 BNS), especially when an employee’s suicide brings the employers to court.

Case Description

Nipun Aneja & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court of India

Case Type: Criminal Appeal

Case No.: Crl.A. 654/2017

Date of Order: 03.10.2024

Bench: J.B. Pardiwala, J. & Manoj Misra, J.

?Facts

1. Rajeev Jain, an employee of Hindustan Lever Limited, was found to have committed suicide in a Lucknow hotel. Rajnish Jain, his brother, lodged an FIR against the senior officers for abetment of his suicide.
2. In the FIR, Rajnish claimed that his brother had worked with the company for 23 years and had recently faced pressure from his seniors to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS).
3. It was alleged that although the company introduced it as VRS, it was being made applicable as Compulsory Retirement Scheme. The brother of the complainant along with his colleagues did not accept it.
4. The senior officers had allegedly forced the deceased to take the VRS and had even threatened him through anti-social elements.
5. The company had organized a program in Lucknow and the deceased came to attend it. He was then subjected to further harassment on the topic and the same was shared by him with his family.
6. On 03.11.06, the senior officers handed him some letters. Rajeev had called home to share about it and later the officers visited his room for a meeting. On the very same day, Rajeev committed suicide.
7. The officers named in the FIR filed a plea for quashing of proceedings before the Allahabad High Court. But the Hon’ble High Court rejected the plea and held that that there was a direct link between the meeting where the deceased had been threatened and humiliated and the suicide that happened afterwords.
8. Therefore, the officers (appellants) filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Issues

1. Whether a link between the meeting with officers and the deceased suicide after the said meeting sufficiently fulfils the ingredients to form an offence under section 306 of IPC?

Laws Involved

Section 306 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (“IPC”)

Material on Record Considered by the Court

1. The two police statements of the deceased’s colleagues revealed that the three appellants were high ranking officers of the company. They had convened a meeting with salesmen of the company to discuss the sales of the company.
2. During the meeting on 03.11.2006, some of the salesmen, including the deceased, were issued letters to undertake the work of merchandising. The employees involved in the meeting did not like it and saw the downgrading as a punishment for not accepting the VRS. However, it was not like the deceased was targeted and humiliated alone.
3. Court relied on Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2009) 9 SCC 618 to interpret the word ‘instigate’ and the case of M. Arjunan v. State Represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315 to interpret the ingredients of section 306 IPC.
4. Reliance was also placed on Ude Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301 where it was held that to convict the accused under section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining culpability.

Court’s Observation

1. For a person to have committed the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important that he must be guilty of instigating the act of suicide. Instigation would mean “to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act”.
2. The ingredient to constitute an offence under section 306 of IPC (abetment to suicide) stands fulfilled if the deceased commits suicide due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused, leaving no other option for the deceased besides suicide.
3. Since the act of committing suicide also accounts for great disturbance towards psychological imbalance, incitement to commit the act can be put into two categories: (i)?Where deceased had sentimental ties or physical relationship with accused, and (ii) Where deceased had relationship with accused in his/her official capacity.
4. In normal circumstances, the relationship of sentimental ties cannot be equated with official relationships as the former has more expectations whereas in latter, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by laws, rules, policies and regulations.
5. The test that the courts should adopt while dealing with the second category of the cases is to ascertain, based on material on record, whether there are indications of the accused having the intention to lead the deceased into committing suicide.

Conclusion

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court’s approach towards dealing with the case at hand to be incorrect. The learned Bench pointed out that the High Court failed to assess whether the officers (appellants) created a situation of unbearable harassment or torture that ultimately resulted in deceased in committing suicide; had the court analysed the statements of the colleagues of deceased, the lack of intention would have become clear.
2. Moreover, the Allahabad High Court did not assess whether the appellants threatened the deceased with direct harming consequences to his family or undertook such public humiliation or loss of dignity that pushed the deceased to take the extreme step.
3. Hence, the Supreme Court set aside High Court’s judgement and allowed the officers’ appeal.

By— Ayush Mita Bardhan , Trainee Associate, The Legal Swan

Who are We?

At The Legal Swan, we are building blocks of workplace safety. Through POSH at Work (www.poshatwork.com) we provide 360° Solutions against Sexual Harassment and through Respekt (www.respekt.in), 360° Solutions for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging. Through Anvay (www.anvayglobal.com) we aim to shape the global narrative around these subjects.

You can get in touch with us at +91 90045 21614 or [email protected].