THE LAW ON ABETEMENT TO SUICIDE

October 19, 2024
section 113a of the evidence act

Introduction

Recently, in the case of Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Up (2024), the law on abatement to suicide has been clarified. Abatement means to instigate, persuade, goad, incite, or encourage someone to commit an act, which he had done in the effect of abatement and otherwise would not have done so. Abatement to suicide has been made a criminal offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The provision has been retained in the newly enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024. The punishment for the offense of abatement is imprisonment up to ten years and a fine.

Time and again, the Supreme Court of India has defined the law on abatement to suicide. And recently, in the case of Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Up (2024), again the apex Court elucidated what amounts to abatement and what factors must be proved by the prosecution before a conviction may be done in Section 306 IPC.

This law note aims to present an analysis before the readers of the findings of the Court with respect to the above-mentioned case, an analysis of the same with the other decisions of the Supreme Court on the abatement to suicide.

Facts of the case

  • The accused in this case was an employee of Hindustan Liver Limited, and he had been working for the company for about 23 years. One day his dead body was found by his brother in Lucknow in a hotel room; apparently he committed suicide, and a note was found.
  • He informed the victim’s wife of the same. The brother lodged the First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 306 IPC. He asserted that his brother (who committed suicide) was an employee of Hindustan Liver Limited. For all those 23 years of his working, he had been diligent, hardworking, and laborious. The brother narrated the conversation of the deceased with his wife, wherein he disclosed that employers of the company were forcing their employees for compulsory retirement, and the deceased was one such employee.
  • Accordingly, some senior employers who were forcing and pressuring the employees to obtain the compulsory retirement were charged under Section 306 of the IPC.
  • The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of the deceased and held that employers were guilty under Section 306 IPC as they were directly responsible for the death of their deceased employee.
  • Dissatisfied with the decision of the Allahabad High Court, the appellants filed the appeal to the apex court.

Arguments from the side of the appellants

The appellants filed the appeal under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution and argued that

  • There was no direct nexus between the pressure for compulsory retirement and suicide as committed by the suicide.
  • In fact, one of the essential requirements for the criminal liability is the requirement of mens rea, which is lacking in the present case.
  • The appellants in some way intended or desired to have those consequences.

Arguments from the side of the deceased respondent

The respondent presented the following arguments:

  • The deceased was a 60-year-old employee. He had been diligent and laborious for all the years of his working.
  • The employers intentionally pressurized him to accept the compulsory retirement.
  • The evidence, like the statements of the wife of the deceased and the other two employees of the workplace, clearly confirm the allegations as made in the FIR.
  • Therefore, a prima facie case exists against the appellant under Section 306 IPC.

Observations made by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court analyzed the law on abatement to suicide and made the following observations:

  • Abatement to suicide is made punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. What amounts to abatement is defined under Section 107 of the IPC. According to which for an abatement there may be instigation, incitement, or criminal conspiracy to commit the offense or facilitation by some illegal act or omission for the commission of that act.
  • Abatement is made a separate offense because an abettor is directly responsible for the commission of the offense because, without his abetment, the offense might not have been committed.
  • However, to prove abatement, a strong and prima facie case is required to be established. As stated in the case of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana (2019), an act of abatement must be judged from the eyes of a reasonable and prudent person and not from the perspective of a hypersensitive person. In every case of abatement, it has to be analyzed whether the abatement was grave enough to drive a reasonable person to commit suicide.
  • In the case of Geo Verghese v. State of Rajasthan (2021), again it was reiterated that mere some admonishing or vituperation by the teachers to the students would not amount to the act of abatement. It must be so forceful, intentional, and severe that a person is left with no other option but to commit suicide. Mere scolding on one or two occasions doesn’t amount to abatement to suicide.
  • Moreover, the prosecution has to establish that the abettor desired or wanted that the person abetted must end his/her life, or the nature of the act was that a normal person would do so in similar circumstances.
  • In the present case too, the prosecution has failed to establish the severity of the case, and the required mens rea on the part of the employees has also not been proved.
  • Accordingly, with these observations, the Supreme Court ruled in the favor of appellants.

Final decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court judgment, which was penned by Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice J B Pardiwala, allowed the appeal and acquitted the employees on the basis of the observations made above. Accordingly, the decision of the Allahabad High Court was overturned.

Conclusion

The decision in the case of Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Up (2024) further clarifies the law on Section 306 IPC, abatement to suicide, and the decision rightly confirms the earlier rulings of the Supreme Court.

 Follow following links for more recent updates-

https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=V-ncXHylL3sGBedB

Leave a Comment