Supreme Court quashes abetment to suicide charges due to lack of proximate link: Prakash & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra (20 December 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 December 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 1020
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K. V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a person be held responsible for abetment to suicide if there is a considerable time gap between the alleged instigating act and the suicide? This question was addressed by the Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment. The court examined whether the actions of the accused directly led to the deceased committing suicide, particularly when a significant period had elapsed between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered the judgment, with Justice B.R. Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the suicide of Jyoti Nagre, who was found dead on March 20, 2015, at her paternal home. She had been residing there for two years prior to her death. Jyoti was married to Prakash (Appellant No. 1) on November 19, 2009, and they had twin sons. Over time, disputes arose between Jyoti and her husband and in-laws. Although there were attempts to resolve the issues, the couple eventually started living separately in Lonikand, Pune. It was alleged that on August 8, 2013, Prakash had physically abused Jyoti over a demand of Rs. 20 lakhs. Following this incident, Jyoti moved back to her paternal home. She filed a criminal case against her husband and in-laws under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During a mahalokadalat on February 17, 2015, the appellants allegedly refused to reconcile and told Jyoti to remarry. Subsequently, Jyoti committed suicide on March 20, 2015. Her mother, Sindhubai Bhausaheb Sanap (Respondent No. 2), lodged a complaint, leading to an FIR against Prakash and his family under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the trial court seeking to be discharged from the charges. The trial court rejected the application on December 24, 2020, stating there was sufficient ground to proceed against the appellants. The appellants then filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the trial court’s order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on October 17, 2022, upholding the trial court’s decision. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court stayed the criminal proceedings on January 30, 2023, while the appeal was pending.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are Section 306 and Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Section 306 of the IPC addresses abetment of suicide, stating, “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 of the IPC defines abetment: “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 to Section 107 clarifies that a person who causes or procures a thing to be done through misrepresentation or concealment is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 states that anyone who facilitates the commission of an act is said to aid the doing of that act.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• There was a five-day delay in lodging the FIR, and the initial Accidental Death Report did not mention any harassment or instigation by the appellants.
• The FIR was an afterthought, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay.
• The appellants did not speak in a manner that would amount to abetment of suicide. Their interaction with the deceased was limited to the mahalokadalat on February 17, 2014, where Appellant No. 1 stated he did not wish to cohabitate with her or settle the proceedings.
• The deceased had been residing separately from the appellants since August 8, 2013, and the only interaction between them was at the mahalokadalat.
• The FIR incorrectly mentioned the date of the mahalokadalat as February 17, 2015, whereas it was actually held on February 17, 2014.
• There was a significant time gap between the mahalokadalat and the suicide, indicating no immediate instigation or abetment.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• There is sufficient material against the appellants to proceed with the charges.
• No interference is warranted in the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellants innovatively highlighted the discrepancy in the date of the mahalokadalat and the significant time gap between the alleged instigation and the suicide, arguing that these factors negate any direct link between their actions and the deceased’s suicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellants abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased, within the meaning of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whether there was a proximate link between the alleged act of instigation by the appellants and the act of suicide by the deceased.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to interpret the legal provisions and determine the case. These authorities are categorized by the legal point they address:

On the Interpretation of Section 306 and 107 of the IPC:

• S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another [2010] 12 SCC 190: The Supreme Court of India held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The court also stated that there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
• Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679: The Supreme Court of India reiterated that the element of mens rea cannot be presumed or inferred and must be evident and explicitly discernible.
• Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] 9 SCC 618: The Supreme Court of India clarified that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage an act. A word uttered in anger without intending the consequences cannot be considered instigation.
• Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana [2019] 17 SCC 301: The Supreme Court of India held that mere harassment is not sufficient for abetment of suicide unless there is an action that compels the person to commit suicide, and such action must be proximate to the time of occurrence.

On the Time Gap Between Instigation and Suicide:

• Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [2002] 5 SCC 371: The Supreme Court of India held that a time gap of 48 hours between the alleged instigation and the suicide was sufficient to break the proximate link.
• Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab [2020] 14 SCC 264: The Supreme Court of India set aside a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC due to a two-month gap between the illegal demand and the suicide.
• Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others [2024] 1 SCC 417: The Supreme Court of India held that an incident two weeks prior to the suicide and a suicide note written three days prior did not amount to instigation.

Other Relevant Cases:

• Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731]: The Supreme Court of India held that mere allegations of harassment are not enough to constitute abetment to suicide.
• State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73]: The Supreme Court of India cautioned that courts should be careful in assessing whether the cruelty meted out to the victim induced them to end their life.
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605]: The Supreme Court of India emphasized that there must be intention to provoke, incite, or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
• Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana [2024] 3 SCC 573: The Supreme Court of India reiterated that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another [2010] 12 SCC 190* to emphasize the need for a positive act and mens rea for abetment.
• The Court used Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679* to reinforce that mens rea cannot be presumed.
• The Court applied the principles from Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] 9 SCC 618* to define instigation as more than just words spoken in anger.
• The Court followed Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana [2019] 17 SCC 301* to state that mere harassment is not sufficient for abetment of suicide.
• The Court cited Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [2002] 5 SCC 371* to highlight that a time gap of 48 hours is sufficient to break the proximate link.
• The Court referred to Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab [2020] 14 SCC 264* to support its decision that a significant time gap negates the charge of abetment.
• The Court cited Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others [2024] 1 SCC 417* to show that an incident two weeks prior to the suicide is not instigation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of a proximate link between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide. The court emphasized that for an offense under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment must be closely connected in time and causation to the act of suicide. The court found that the time gap of over a month between the mahalokadalat and the suicide was significant enough to break this link. Additionally, the court highlighted the lack of any direct evidence of instigation or intention to push the deceased to commit suicide. The absence of any mention of harassment in the initial Accidental Death Report also raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of fact to law that influenced the court to decide is as follows:

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as whether the statements at the mahalokadalat could be seen as indirect instigation. However, the court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing the need for a direct and proximate link between the act of instigation and the act of suicide. The court reasoned that the time gap and the lack of direct evidence of intent to push the deceased to suicide made it impossible to sustain the charges under Section 306 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellants had the intention to instigate or aid the deceased to commit suicide. The court noted that while the death of a young woman was tragic, the evidence did not support the charges of abetment. The court stated that continuing criminal proceedings against the appellants would be an abuse of the process of law.

The key reasons for the decision were:

• The lack of a proximate link between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the suicide.
• The absence of any direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement.
• The significant time gap of over a month between the mahalokadalat and the suicide.
• The lack of mens rea on the part of the appellants to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

“The cardinal principle of the subject -matter at hand is that there must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim.”

“The close proximity should be such as to create a clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide.”

“We are of the considered view that the reasoning given by the High Court for refusal to discharge the appellants is completely perfunctory.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench consisted of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, with Justice B.R. Gavai authoring the judgment.

The judgment has significant implications for future cases involving abetment to suicide. It clarifies that a mere allegation of harassment or discord is not sufficient to establish abetment. There must be a direct link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide. The judgment reinforces that the act of instigation must be proximate to the act of suicide and that a significant time gap can break the chain of causation. The judgment also underscores the importance of mens rea in establishing abetment.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reinforces the existing principles regarding abetment to suicide. The court’s analysis of the facts and its emphasis on the need for a direct and proximate link between the instigation and the suicide provide a clear guideline for future cases. The court’s rejection of the prosecution’s case highlights the importance of establishing a clear intention to instigate suicide and a close temporal connection between the act of instigation and the act of suicide.

Key Takeaways

• A significant time gap between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide can negate the charge of abetment to suicide.
• Mere harassment or discord is not sufficient to establish abetment; there must be a direct link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide.
• The act of instigation must be proximate to the act of suicide to form a clear nexus.
• The prosecution must establish mens rea (intention) on the part of the accused to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
• Initial reports, such as Accidental Death Reports, are important and can be used to assess the credibility of later allegations.

The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on future cases involving abetment to suicide. It reinforces the need for a direct and proximate link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide. This will make it more difficult to prosecute cases where there is a significant time gap between the alleged instigation and the suicide. The judgment also highlights the importance of establishing the intention of the accused to instigate the suicide.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prakash & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) quashed the charges of abetment to suicide against the appellants. The court emphasized that there was no direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement by the appellants that led the deceased to commit suicide. The significant time gap between the alleged incident at the mahalokadalat and the suicide broke the chain of causation, and the court found no proximate link between the actions of the appellants and the deceased’s suicide. This judgment underscores the importance of establishing a clear intention to instigate suicide and a close temporal connection between the act of instigation and the act of suicide. It serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving abetment to suicide, highlighting the need for a direct and proximate link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide.