Supreme Court Overturns Abetment Conviction in Suicide Case: M. Arjunan vs. State (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 4th December, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 1047
Judges: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee
Can mere financial pressure and harsh words from a lender constitute abetment of suicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a borrower tragically took his own life. The court examined whether the actions of the lender amounted to instigation or abetment, which is necessary for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The bench, comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee, overturned the conviction, holding that the evidence did not establish the required intent for abetment.

Case Background

The case revolves around a loan of ₹80,000 given by the appellant, M. Arjunan, to the deceased, Rajagopal, on December 2, 2001. A promissory note was executed for the loan. Subsequently, on December 7, 2002, M. Arjunan allegedly demanded ₹50,000 as interest and another ₹50,000 towards the principal amount. On June 21, 2003, in the presence of witnesses, Rajagopal stated his intention to repay the entire loan but was unable to do so. Due to alleged harassment by M. Arjunan, Rajagopal committed suicide on the same day, leaving behind a suicide note stating his inability to repay the loan as the reason for his extreme step.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, upon examining the oral evidence and the suicide note, convicted M. Arjunan under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹500. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the conviction, noting the evidence of the loan, the promissory note, and the alleged harassment. However, the High Court reduced the sentence to three months of imprisonment. M. Arjunan then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with abetment of suicide. It states:

“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are:
✓ The abetment
✓ The intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
The Supreme Court noted that mere insulting or abusive language is not sufficient to constitute abetment of suicide. There must be evidence that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the suicide note (M.O.1) only indicated the deceased’s financial difficulties and inability to repay the loan.
• There was no evidence of any instigation or direct link between the appellant’s actions and the deceased’s suicide.
• The appellant contended that mere pressure for repayment and harsh words do not constitute abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused through the evidence of the loan, the promissory note, and the alleged torture by the appellant.
• The respondent relied on the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 (the deceased’s family) and the suicide note (M.O.1) to prove that the appellant’s actions led to the suicide.
• The respondent contended that the deceased was under severe pressure and that the appellant’s actions were a direct cause of the suicide.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellant-accused, thereby constituting an offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines and penalizes abetment of suicide.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

View of Authorities

The Court considered Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and held that the essential ingredients of the offence were not met. The court stated that “The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence showing a direct link between the appellant’s actions and the deceased’s suicide. The court emphasized that mere financial pressure and harsh words do not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court focused on the absence of any intent on the part of the appellant to instigate the deceased to take his own life. The court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure that convictions under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are based on concrete evidence of abetment, not merely on the presence of financial difficulties or harsh words.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court stated, “The tenor of M.O.1 only shows that the deceased was subjected to pressure for payment and was facing the financial difficulty. In M.O.1 (letter) there is nothing to indicate that there was instigation by the appellant-accused which had driven the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide.” The court further clarified, “The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.” The court concluded, “From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are not established and the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.”

Key Takeaways

• Mere financial pressure or harsh words from a lender do not automatically constitute abetment of suicide.
• To establish abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be clear evidence of the accused’s intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
• The suicide note alone is not sufficient to prove abetment; it must be supported by other evidence indicating instigation.
• This judgment emphasizes the importance of proving a direct link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s suicide.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be clear evidence of intent to instigate suicide, and that mere financial pressure or harsh words are insufficient. This judgment reinforces the established legal position that abetment requires a direct link between the accused’s actions and the suicide, and that the accused must have intended to instigate the deceased to take their own life.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of M. Arjunan under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, holding that the evidence did not establish the necessary intent for abetment of suicide. The court emphasized that mere financial pressure and harsh words do not constitute abetment unless there is a clear intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. This judgment reinforces the importance of proving a direct link between the accused’s actions and the suicide, ensuring that convictions are based on concrete evidence of abetment.