Proving Abetment of Suicide in a Criminal Trial: Lawyers Advice

The Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines, “Abetment of a thing” or simply abetting or instigating to do some something, or engaging with other person in a conspiracy for doing that thing. Other than this, deliberately instigating a person to commit an offence is also recognized as abetment or instigation. In Gangula Mohan Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 2 Cr LJ 2110 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that commission of some positive act by the accused is necessary to constitute abetment. Furthermore, abetment or instigation includes a metal process of intentionally aiding someone to commit something.

Under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code, if person abets a child below the age of eighteen, or any insane or delirious person or any person in a state of intoxication to commit suicide. Such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life or a death sentence. He/she may be imprisoned for a term up to ten years and shall also be penalised with fine. It may be noted that the given section only deals with cases where the victim was a child, a lunatic or idiot or someone under the state of intoxication. The section 306 of the Indian Penal Code deals with cases where the victim is any general person. According to this section, the person who abets the suicide of the other person shall be inflicted with an imprisonment with a jail term up to ten years and also a fine.

Abetment of suicide has been made a cognizable, and non-bailable offence. Furthermore, this offence is non-compoundable in nature which means that case cannot be withdrawn notwithstanding the complaint and the accused have reached a settlement or compromise.

Essential Ingredients for proving Abetment of Suicide: –
Now, in order to prove that there has been an instigation or abetment with the intention to cause someone to commit suicide. It may be important to comprehend the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide.

In Raj Bala v. State of Haryana 2015 Cr Lj 4360 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave two essential ingredients to prove the criminal offence of abetment of suicide. These are as follows: –

1. Firstly, the death is suicidal in nature.
2. Secondly, such death was as a consequence of abetment.

In Praven Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal 2012 IV Cr LJ 4925 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is important in a case of, “abetment of suicide” that such abetment or instigation is made with an intention to cause the action, as mere words spoken or uttered in anger do not constitute abetment.

In order to convict a person for abetment of suicide, it is essential that such abetment or instigation is made with a clear intention to cause a person do a thing. A positive act from the accused to abet the person in committing a suicide is a sin qua non. From the perspective of legislature, to convict a person under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, presence of mens rea is essential in committing the offence.

In Siddaling v. State through Kalagi Police Station (Decided on 9 August, 2018), Harassment, dowry demand and cruelty meted out to a bride at the hands of her husband who was allegedly in an ill-legitimate relationship with another woman. This was maintained as the sole reason for the commitment of suicide by the wife. Considering the same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, convicted the accused, husband under Sections 498A & 306 of the Indian Penal Code and imprisoned him for two and five years respectively for the said offences.

In Naresh Marotrao Sakhre & Another v. Union of India & Others (1994 (2) Mh LJ 1850), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court differentiating Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) & Section 309 (Commission of Suicide) held the following points, which are namely:

1. The offence described under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is in its entirety based upon public policy to prevent someone to instigate, or abet a person in terminating his/her life. On the other hand, if a person attempts suicide intentionally was initially held liable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. However, later in P. Rathinam v Union of India (1994 AIR 1844) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court scrapped out Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code declaring the same unconstitutional.
2. The Hon’ble court clearly pointed out that under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the person who instigates the commission of suicide and not the one who commits or attempts suicide is to be punished. Thus, the person committing or attempting suicide do not fall in the category of, “principal offender” as the commission or attempt of suicide is not crime in itself.
3. Lastly, to conclude, offenses under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code which declares instigation or abetment of suicide as criminal offence is totally constitutional and further is not in contravention of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Personal Life & Liberty) of the Constitution of India.

Murder and Abetment of Suicide are two different things: –
Murder defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is different from Abetment of Suicide defined under Section 305 & 306 of the Indian Penal Code in many aspects. In a murder case, there are few pivotal conditions which are to be fulfilled in order to prove the commission of the offense, which are namely:

1. The act which has caused death was done with the intention of causing death.
2. The act is done with such deliberation of causing such bodily injury which the accused knows is likely to cause death.
3. In the ordinary course of nature, the injury inflicted is sufficient to cause death.
4. It is important that the forthcoming dangerous act in the hands of the accused is probably sufficient to cause death.
   

Now coming to, “abetment of suicide”, where the death is suicidal in nature and the person instigating or abetting it is doing the same with the intention to cause such action. In Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Decided on 23rd April 1997), the Supreme Court of India clearly held that notwithstanding the fact that there lies an intention in abetment of suicide to instigate a person to commit suicide. The same is different from Murder as in the latter, the ultimate cause of causing death is executed by the accused himself.

\Bollywood Actor Sushant Singh Rajput, was found hanging from the ceiling of his flat in Bandra, Mumbai on 14th June 2020. His father, K.K. Singh lodged a First Information Report against actress Rhea Chakraborty under Section 306 (Abetment of Suicide) and various other sections namely, 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), 380 (theft in dwelling house), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), and 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property). Most importantly, the actress has been alleged of abetting the suicide and keeping the late actor in wrongful confinement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering the gravity of the issue ordered Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation upholding the Bihar government’s recommendation. Following this, Rhea Chakraborty was booked for the case, however she filed a petition in the Supreme Court denying the charges. The case is yet to be solved completely and justice is awaited to the innocent.

Committing or attempting suicide in itself is not a crime under any legal legislation in India. But, abetting someone to commit suicide is a criminal offence under Sections 305 & 306 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860. It may be noted that abetment or instigation is an offence only if the act or conduct abetted or instigated constitutes some active pursuance towards the perpetration or commission of the crime. Both the Supreme Court and High Courts have from time to time pointed out essential ingredients for an offence to be proved as abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Authored By: Adv. Anant Sharma & Aniket Pandey