Supreme Court overturns conviction for abetment of suicide in dowry harassment case: Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2019) INSC 18

Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 18

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a person be convicted for abetment of suicide based on incidents that occurred several months before the suicide? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a criminal appeal, focusing on whether the actions of the accused were proximate enough to the suicide to constitute abetment. The Court examined the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for allegedly abetting the suicide of his brother-in-law. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, who delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the suicide of Arvind, who was married to Manju. The appellant, Rajesh, is Arvind’s brother-in-law. According to the complaint filed by Bharat Singh (PW-1), Arvind’s father, Arvind committed suicide on 23 February 2002 by consuming Sulfas tablets. A suicide note was found on 1 March 2002, in which Arvind stated that he was taking his life due to the harassment and false allegations of dowry demand made by Rajesh, his father-in-law Laxmi Narayan, and his sister-in-law Indera. The suicide note also mentioned that a Panchayat was held where Rajesh slapped Arvind, and that the accused threatened to implicate his family in a false criminal case.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Rajesh, Laxmi Narayan, and Indera under Section 306 of the IPC. Rajesh and Laxmi Narayan were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment, while Indera was sentenced to three years. The Trial Court considered the Panchayat held in September 2001 and the continuous threats made by the accused as the reasons for the conviction. The High Court upheld the conviction of Rajesh, but acquitted Laxmi Narayan and Indera. The High Court’s decision to uphold Rajesh’s conviction was primarily based on the fact that Rajesh had slapped Arvind during the Panchayat in September 2001.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with abetment of suicide, and Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment.

• Section 306, IPC:
  “Abetment of suicide.—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.”
• Section 107, IPC:
  “Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the suicide note and the evidence of witnesses established that the deceased was harassed and threatened by the accused, which led him to commit suicide. They contended that the Panchayat held in September 2001, where the appellant slapped the deceased and made false allegations, along with continuous threats, constituted abetment. The prosecution relied on the suicide note to prove that the deceased was under continuous harassment due to the false allegations of dowry demand and threats of implicating his family in a false case.

The defense argued that there was no direct instigation by the appellant to commit suicide. They contended that the incident at the Panchayat was five months prior to the suicide, and there was no proximate cause established between the incident and the suicide. The defense also argued that the deceased was suffering from depression due to unemployment and lack of income, which could have been a contributing factor to the suicide.

The innovativeness of the argument on the defense side was that they argued that the incident at the Panchayat was too remote in time to be considered a direct cause for the suicide, and that the deceased’s depression and unemployment were more likely contributing factors.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant can be held guilty for committing an offence under Section 306 of the IPC based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court referred to the following cases to interpret the meaning of ‘abetment’ and ‘instigation’ under Section 107 and Section 306 of the IPC, respectively:

• Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [ (2010) 1 SCC 707 ], Supreme Court of India: The Court cited this case to emphasize that conviction under Section 306 IPC requires a positive action by the accused proximate to the time of the suicide.
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [ (2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 367 ], Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to for the interpretation of the term “instigation,” stating that it involves provoking, inciting, or encouraging someone to do an act by goading or urging forward.
• Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal [ (2012) 9 SCC 734 ], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight that words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court relied on Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707]* to emphasize that a conviction under Section 306 IPC requires a positive act by the accused that is proximate to the time of the suicide.
• The Supreme Court used Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 367]* to define “instigation” as provoking, inciting, or encouraging someone to do an act by goading or urging forward.
• The Supreme Court applied Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal [(2012) 9 SCC 734]* to clarify that words uttered in anger or omission without intention do not constitute instigation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of proximity between the appellant’s actions and the deceased’s suicide. The Court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a direct and proximate link between the accused’s actions and the suicide. The Court found that the incident at the Panchayat, which occurred five months before the suicide, was too remote to be considered a direct cause. The Court also noted that the High Court erred in upholding the conviction of the appellant while acquitting the other two accused, as the allegations against all three were similar.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the deceased was continuously threatened, but found no evidence of direct instigation or encouragement by the appellant to commit suicide. The Court also considered the fact that the High Court had acquitted the other two accused, while the allegations against all three were similar. The Court stated that “Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.” The Court further stated, “There was neither a provocation nor encouragement by the Appellant to the deceased to commit an act of suicide.” The Court also noted that “Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.”

The Court rejected the interpretation that the Panchayat incident and the subsequent alleged threats were sufficient to constitute abetment. The Court reasoned that the time gap of five months between the incident and the suicide was too significant to establish a direct link. The Court also considered the fact that the High Court had acquitted the other two accused, while the allegations against all three were similar, which made the conviction of the appellant inconsistent.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a direct and proximate link between the accused’s actions and the suicide.
• ✓ Incidents that occurred several months before the suicide, without any direct instigation, may not be sufficient to establish abetment.
• ✓ Words uttered in anger or omission without intention do not constitute instigation.
• ✓ Courts must consider the proximity of the alleged abetment to the act of suicide.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and discharged his bail bonds.

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 a direct and proximate link between the actions of the accused and the suicide. The Court clarified that incidents occurring months before the suicide, without any direct instigation, do not constitute abetment. This judgment reinforces the principle that there must be a clear and immediate connection between the accused’s actions and the act of suicide for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC. This position of law is not a change in the previous position of law but rather a reiteration of the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellant, Rajesh, under Section 306 of the IPC, holding that the incident at the Panchayat five months prior to the suicide, along with the alleged threats, did not constitute abetment of suicide. The Court emphasized the importance of proximity and direct instigation in establishing abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. The judgment highlights the need for a clear and immediate connection between the accused’s actions and the act of suicide for a conviction.