Mere harassment is not sufficient to prove abetment of suicide: SC | Latest news India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that mere harassment or acts intended to provoke anger cannot by themselves constitute the offense of abetting suicide, cautioning against confusing general charges with the legal threshold for criminal charges.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale held that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which makes abetment of suicide punishable by up to 10 years in prison, requires the prosecution to establish a clear and direct link between the accused. the victim’s actions and decision to take their own life. The judgment reaffirms the essential requirement of “mens rea” (intent) to incite or assist the act of suicide, without which a conviction under this provision cannot stand.

“Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetment of suicide… The prosecution must prove an active or direct action by the accused which caused the deceased to take his own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be assumed or inferred; it must be obvious and explicitly visible,” the court ruled in a ruling on Tuesday as it acquitted a man and his family accused of encouraging his wife’s suicide.

The court pointed out that Section 306 IPC penalizes only those whose actions fall within the parameters outlined in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment as intentional instigation, conspiracy or facilitation. To convict an accused under Section 306 of the IPC, it held, the act of abetment must be explicitly shown by actions or conduct of the accused which directly contributed to the victim’s decision to take his own life. Section 306 of the IPC has been replaced by Section 108 in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — the new penal law effective from July 1.

Citing established precedents, the court noted that in SS Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010), the apex court held that the presence of a clear mens rea to instigate or induce the deceased to commit suicide is indispensable. “It takes certain acts, omissions, or words that would incite or cause another person to commit suicide,” the ruling emphasized.

Referring to Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh (2001), the court pointed out that for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a “clear intention” of the accused to instigate the deceased to commit suicide and that charges of harassment or discord must be accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation closely related to the time of the suicide.

Emphasizing that the proximity of the accused’s actions to the act of suicide is critical, the sentence added: “The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused played a definite role in abetment. Without clear evidence of an active role in causing or assisting the suicide, a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained,” the court observed.

The ruling also clarified: “In cases of alleged encouragement to commit suicide, there must be concrete evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient unless they are accompanied by actions so compelling that the victim perceives no alternative but to take her own life.”

The court also examined the timing and nature of the alleged harassment, stating, “For the actions to qualify as encouragement, they must be proximate to the time of the suicide.” Harassment that occurred months or years before the act, he said, might not establish the necessary connection.

The court asked the courts to consider whether the accused’s conduct, including provoking, inciting or tarnishing the victim’s self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. “If the accused’s actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they may not meet the threshold of encouragement or investigation. Each case requires a careful evaluation of the facts, taking into account the intention of the accused and its impact on the victim,” he emphasized.

The ruling came in a case in which a man and his family were accused of encouraging the suicide of his wife, who was found hanged in her marital home in 2021. The woman’s father claimed she faced physical and mental harassment after she sold her gold ornaments, which allegedly created unbearable pressure on her.

However, the court found that the alleged incidents occurred nearly a year before the woman’s death and lacked the proximate connection necessary to establish abetment. “Even if the allegations of harassment are accepted as true, they do not reflect any intention to instigate, incite or cause the deceased to commit suicide,” the court said.

The court noted that while domestic disputes may cause distress, they do not automatically translate into criminal culpability. However, in the same facts of the case, the court affirmed the trial of the man and his family for the cruel treatment of the deceased in the light of the testimonies of the members of her family regarding the mental and physical cruelty caused to him in his marital home. .