Supreme Court quashes abetment to suicide charges against US-based relative: Amudha vs. State (2024) INSC 244 (22 March 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 March 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 244
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can mere allegations of harassment and a suicide note, without any direct evidence of incitement, lead to a conviction for abetment of suicide? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of India. The Court examined the circumstances under which a person can be held liable for abetting suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved an appeal against the dismissal of a quashing petition by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, where the appellant was accused of abetting the suicide of her relative. The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves the suicide of Kanagasabha, who allegedly died by consuming poison on 5th March 2020. The deceased had a property dispute with his elder brother, Baskar @ Annamalai. Another brother, Anandraj, had sold a house to the deceased, but Annamalai and his family, including his wife, son, and daughter Amutha (the appellant), occupied it. Annamalai refused to vacate the house and filed a civil suit against the deceased, which he lost. Despite this, Annamalai did not vacate the premises. The deceased then sought intervention from a local MLA, but the issue remained unresolved. The complainant, the second respondent and sister of the deceased, alleged that Annamalai and his family, including the appellant, harassed the deceased, often insulting him for being a bachelor and telling him to go away and die. The appellant was charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment to suicide.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

After the charge sheet was filed, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras to quash the proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

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

“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 court also considered Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines abetment. It states that a person abets the doing of a thing, who:

“Firstly.—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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that even if all the prosecution witnesses’ statements are taken as true, no offense under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the appellant.
• It was highlighted that the appellant had left for the USA on 11th September 2019 and remained there until the date of the suicide.
• The counsel submitted that there was no evidence to show that the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide during this period.

State’s Submissions:

• The State’s counsel contended that without recording oral evidence in the Trial Court, it cannot be concluded that no case of abetment to suicide was made out against the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the available evidence, even if taken at face value, could establish a case of abetment to suicide against the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2017) 7 SCC 780]* and reiterated that mere allegations of harassment are not sufficient to constitute abetment to suicide. There must be a positive action that creates a situation for the victim to end their life.
• The Court followed Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707]* and reiterated that there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence showing any direct or proximate connection between the appellant’s actions and the deceased’s suicide. The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment or a general statement in a suicide note are insufficient to establish abetment. The absence of any communication between the appellant and the deceased during the relevant period was a crucial factor. The court also highlighted that there must be some positive action by the accused that compels the victim to commit suicide.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative argument that the general allegations and the suicide note were sufficient to establish abetment. However, it rejected this argument because there was no evidence of any direct or proximate act of incitement by the appellant. The court emphasized that the legal standard for abetment requires more than just general allegations or a suicide note. The court concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant’s actions had left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.

The Supreme Court held that the charge sheet against the appellant did not disclose any offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized that for an offense of abetment to suicide, there must be a direct or indirect act of incitement that is proximate to the time of the suicide. The court noted that the appellant had left for the USA on 11th September 2019 and had not returned to India until after the suicide. The court also noted that there was no evidence of any communication between the appellant and the deceased during this period. The court noted that mere general allegations of harassment were not sufficient to establish abetment to suicide.

“mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”

“in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.”

“Taking the charge sheet as correct, we find that there were no acts of incitement on the part of the appellant proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide.”

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concurring in the judgment. There were no dissenting opinions.

The judgment has implications for future cases involving abetment to suicide. It emphasizes the need for clear evidence of direct incitement or positive action by the accused that is proximate to the time of the suicide. General allegations of harassment or a suicide note, without such evidence, will not be sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC. The decision also clarifies that the accused’s physical presence or communication with the deceased around the time of the suicide is a crucial factor to be considered.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Mere allegations of harassment are not sufficient to prove abetment to suicide.
• ✓ There must be evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement.
• ✓ The accused’s actions must be proximate to the time of the suicide.
• ✓ Physical presence or communication between the accused and the deceased around the time of the suicide is a crucial factor.
• ✓ General statements in a suicide note are not sufficient to establish abetment.

This judgment clarifies the legal standards for abetment to suicide, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of direct incitement rather than relying on general allegations. It will likely influence how lower courts handle similar cases, ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence of abetment.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant in P.R.C. No.32/2021 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate­II, Puducherry. The court clarified that the adjudication was confined to the case of the appellant only, and the Trial Court is free to proceed against the other accused in accordance with the law. The defenses of the other accused were kept open.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an offense of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there must be a direct or indirect act of incitement that is proximate to the time of the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or a general statement in a suicide note are not sufficient to establish abetment. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce any new principles of law. It emphasizes the need for a strict interpretation of the requirements for abetment to suicide.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Amudha, quashing the abetment to suicide charges against her. The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment and a suicide note, without evidence of direct incitement or positive action proximate to the suicide, are insufficient to establish abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence in cases of abetment to suicide.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:

• Abetment to Suicide
• Section 306, Indian Penal Code
• Section 107, Indian Penal Code

FAQ

Q: What is abetment to suicide under Indian law?
A: Abetment to suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), refers to the act of instigating, aiding, or engaging in a conspiracy that leads a person to commit suicide. It requires more than just general harassment; there must be a direct or indirect act of incitement.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court quashed the charges against the appellant, holding that there was no evidence of direct incitement or positive action by her that led to the deceased’s suicide. The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment and a suicide note are not enough to prove abetment.

Q: What kind of evidence is needed to prove abetment to suicide?
A: To prove abetment to suicide, there must be evidence of a direct or indirect act of incitement, conspiracy, or intentional aid that is proximate to the time of the suicide. General allegations of harassment or a suicide note alone are not sufficient.

Q: What does “proximate to the time of suicide” mean?
A: “Proximate to the time of suicide” means that the actions of the accused must be closely connected in time to the act of suicide. There should be a clear link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s decision to end their life.

Q: Can a person be convicted of abetment to suicide if they were not physically present when the suicide took place?
A: Yes, a person can be convicted of abetment to suicide even if they were not physically present, provided there is evidence of their direct or indirect acts of incitement or conspiracy that led to the suicide. However, their absence can be a factor in determining whether their actions were proximate to the suicide.