Supreme Court

Velladurai vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police

MANU/SC/0644/2021

14.09.2021

Criminal

Person accused of abetment of suicide must have played an active role to attract Section 306 of IPC

The Supreme Court, while deciding on a matter concerned with Abetment of Suicide has observed that mere quarrel on the day of occurrence of suicide cannot attract punishment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court while delivering the judgment reiterated that mere harassment without any instigative action or omission by the accused proximate to the time of suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 of IPC.

In this case, the accused and his wife consumed pesticide, following some quarrel between them. While the accused survived, his wife died due to the consumption of the pesticide. A chargesheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, following a complaint filed by the brother of the deceased woman. As a result, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 306 IPC and punished him with 7 years of imprisonment and a fine of INR 2500/-. In addition, the accused was charged for Harassment Suicide under Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and was punished with three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of INR 2500/-. The decision was subsequently upheld by the Madras High Court.

However, the accused filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, where the court took note of the facts of the case highlighting that the marriage between the accused husband and the deceased wife took place 25 years back. As such, the prima facie “presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman” under Section 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.

On bringing the acts of a person (here, the accused husband) under the purview of Section 306 of IPC, the court cited its Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs State Of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 judgment and observed that “in order to bring a case within the provision 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 instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu Pal, mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.”

In addition, the Supreme Court clarified abetment is when a person instigates another to do something and that such instigation can be inferred where the accused, by his acts or omission creates such circumstances that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide.

With respect to the present case, the Supreme Court observed that while the allegation against the appellant was that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence of suicide, there was no other material on record which indicated abetment. There was no material on record that the appellant-accused played an active role by an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary, even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and consumed pesticide. As such, there was no other material on record which would indicate abetment.

Tags : Abetment to suicide

Share :