Supreme Court Quashes Abetment to Suicide Charges: Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the charges of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be sustained based on the available evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 17 September 2021

Date of the Judgment: 17 September 2021
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1022 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 7554 of 2019)
Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J. (authored by R. Subhash Reddy, J.)

Can a person be charged with abetment to suicide simply because the deceased consumed poison at their residence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a woman was accused of abetting the suicide of a man who allegedly had a relationship with her. The court examined whether the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a trial for abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and for offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The bench, comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, delivered the judgment, with Justice R. Subhash Reddy authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On May 11, 2018, an FIR (First Information Report) was filed at P.S. T.P. Nagar Police Station, District Meerut, by Vijaydeep, the brother of the deceased, Vikas. The FIR alleged that on May 4, 2018, Vikas was called to the residence of Kanchan Sharma (the appellant). There, Kanchan Sharma, along with her parents and sister, allegedly abused Vikas using casteist slurs and forcefully administered poison to him, causing him to become unconscious. Vikas was taken to the hospital but later died due to alleged negligence. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 328 (administering poison), 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against Kanchan Sharma, her brother, and her sister.

However, after investigation, the final report was filed only against Kanchan Sharma for offences under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Cognizance was taken against Kanchan Sharma, and non-bailable warrants were issued on February 21, 2019. The case was registered as Special Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2019 (State v. Kanchan Sharma) and was pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Meerut.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Kanchan Sharma approached the High Court of Allahabad under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), seeking to quash the cognizance order, the non-bailable warrant, and the criminal proceedings in Special Trial No. 23 of 2019. She argued that no offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was made out against her. The High Court dismissed her application, stating that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with abetment of suicide. The section 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 court also considered Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which 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.”

Additionally, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was considered, which penalizes acts of atrocity against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Kanchan Sharma):

• There is no basis to proceed against the appellant for the alleged offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• The deceased was harassing the appellant by following her and proposing marriage.
• On the day of the incident, the deceased came to the appellant’s house and threatened to consume poison if she did not agree to marry him.
• The deceased consumed poison from a bottle he was carrying and died in the hospital.
• There is no evidence of any active act on the part of the appellant to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide.
• The allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are also baseless.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Uttar Pradesh):

• The deceased had a relationship with the appellant.
• The deceased committed suicide because the appellant refused to marry him.
• The appellant’s refusal to marry the deceased amounts to abetment of suicide.
• The appellant and her family members abused the deceased using casteist slurs.
• The appellant should be prosecuted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether the available evidence is sufficient to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whether the allegations under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are supported by sufficient evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605]: This case discussed the concept of abetment, emphasizing that there should be an intention to provoke, incite, or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. It also noted that each person’s suicidability pattern is different, and each case must be decided based on its own facts and circumstances.
• Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707]: This case stated that for an offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are not sufficient without any positive action by the accused that compelled the person to commit suicide.
• S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. [(2010) 12 SCC 190]: This case reiterated that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in committing suicide. A clear mens rea (guilty mind) is required, along with an active or direct act that led the deceased to commit suicide.
• Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapur [(2013) 3 SCC 330]: This case laid down the steps to be followed by the High Court while determining the veracity of a prayer for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

Authority Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605]: The Court used this case to emphasize that abetment requires an intention to provoke or incite the act, and that each case of suicide must be decided based on its unique facts.
• Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707]: The Court relied on this case to highlight that for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be direct or indirect acts of incitement, and mere harassment is not sufficient.
• S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. [(2010) 12 SCC 190]: The Court used this case to reiterate that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding suicide, and that a clear mens rea and active act are required.
• Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapur [(2013) 3 SCC 330]: The Court applied the principles laid down in this case to assess the material on record and determine whether the proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the lack of evidence to support the charges against Kanchan Sharma. The Court noted that the deceased had a history of harassing the appellant and had threatened to commit suicide if she did not marry him. The court found no evidence to suggest that the appellant had any intention to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. The court also noted that the allegations of casteist abuse were vague and unsubstantiated.

The court was particularly influenced by the fact that the deceased had consumed poison himself and that there was no evidence of any active or direct act on the part of the appellant that led him to take such a step. The court also highlighted the importance of establishing a clear mens rea (guilty mind) for an offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

The following table ranks the key reasons given by the Supreme Court, based on their emphasis in the judgment:

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The court’s reasoning was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and a strict interpretation of the legal provisions. The court emphasized that:

• There was no evidence of a relationship between the appellant and the deceased.
• The deceased had a history of harassing the appellant and had threatened to commit suicide if she did not marry him.
• The deceased consumed poison himself, and there was no active act on the part of the appellant to instigate or aid in the suicide.
• The allegations of casteist abuse were vague and unsubstantiated.

The court also considered the principles laid down in previous cases to determine whether the available evidence was sufficient to proceed with a trial. The court concluded that compelling the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material would be a travesty of justice.

The court quoted from the judgment: “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC.”

The court further stated, “To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

The court also noted, “Even with regard to offence alleged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act it is to be noticed that except vague and bald statement that the appellant and other family members abused deceased by uttering casteist words but there is nothing on record to show to attract any of the ingredients for the alleged offence also.”

Key Takeaways

• A person cannot be charged with abetment to suicide simply because the deceased consumed poison at their residence.
• For an offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be an active act or direct act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide.
• Mere allegations of harassment or a refusal to marry are not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide.
• Allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, must be supported by specific evidence and not vague statements.
• The High Court should not reject applications for quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.PC merely based on disputed questions of fact, without considering the material on record.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. Consequently, the court quashed the order/NBW dated 21.02.2019 and the proceedings of Special Trial No. 23 of 2019 (State v. Kanchan Sharma) arising out of Crime No. 0278 of 2018 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Meerut.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be an active or direct act by the accused to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Mere presence at the scene or a prior relationship is not sufficient. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and emphasizes the need for concrete evidence to establish abetment of suicide.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant clarification on the requirements for establishing abetment of suicide. The court emphasized that a mere allegation of a relationship or harassment is not enough to convict a person under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment underscores the need for concrete evidence of an active act or direct instigation by the accused that led the deceased to commit suicide. This ruling serves as a vital reminder that criminal proceedings should not be initiated without a sound basis and that the courts must carefully scrutinize the evidence before compelling an individual to face trial.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Abetment of Suicide, Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(2)(v), Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482

FAQ

Q: What does abetment to suicide mean under Indian law?
A: Abetment to suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, means intentionally instigating or aiding someone to commit suicide. It requires an active act or direct involvement that leads the person to take their own life.

Q: Can someone be charged with abetment to suicide if the deceased consumed poison at their house?
A: No, the mere fact that someone consumed poison at a person’s house is not enough to charge them with abetment to suicide. There must be evidence that the accused actively instigated or aided the deceased in committing suicide.

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 by the accused that compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or a refusal to marry are not sufficient.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment by the Supreme Court?
A: This judgment clarifies that criminal proceedings under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, should not be initiated without concrete evidence of an active act or direct instigation by the accused. It protects individuals from being subjected to criminal trials based on vague allegations or circumstantial evidence.

Q: What is Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
A: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The High Court can quash criminal proceedings if there is no sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial.