LEGAL ISSUE: Whether demanding repayment of a loan and using abusive language constitutes abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Mohit Singhal & Anr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. Judgment Date: 1 December 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 1 December 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1035
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can a person be charged with abetment to suicide simply for demanding repayment of a loan, even if harsh words were used? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving allegations of abetment to suicide. The Court examined whether the actions of the accused constituted instigation to commit suicide, as defined under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case involves a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the third respondent, the widow of the deceased Ashok Kumar, against the appellants, Mohit Singhal and another. The third respondent had borrowed money from Sandeep Bansal, the first appellant’s father. Initially, she borrowed Rs. 40,000 and later an additional Rs. 60,000. While repaying the second loan, Sandeep deducted Rs. 15,000 as interest. On June 8, 2017, Sandeep allegedly called the third respondent and abused her for not repaying the loan. She requested two months’ time to repay. On June 15, 2017, the first appellant allegedly came to the third respondent’s shop, where her husband was present, demanding money. The first appellant allegedly abused and assaulted the deceased with a belt. He also allegedly assaulted the third respondent and the mother of the deceased, and threatened to abduct the third respondent’s daughter. The third respondent had given 10 to 12 cheques to Sandeep, one of which was dishonored, leading to a legal notice dated June 27, 2017, issued by Sandeep to the deceased. The third respondent stated that her husband was under tension due to these events and committed suicide on July 4, 2017. The prosecution also relied on a suicide note allegedly written by the deceased on June 30, 2017.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 8th June 2017 | Sandeep Bansal allegedly calls and abuses the third respondent for not repaying the loan. |
| 15th June 2017 | The first appellant allegedly visits the third respondent’s shop, demands money, abuses, and assaults the deceased. |
| 27th June 2017 | Sandeep issues a legal notice to the deceased regarding a dishonored cheque. |
| 30th June 2017 | The deceased allegedly writes a suicide note. |
| 4th July 2017 | The deceased commits suicide. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court rejected the prayer of quashing the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide. The provision states:
“Section 306 of 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.”
The term “abetment” is defined under Section 107 of the IPC:
“Section 107 — 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.”
The court focused on whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide, which is the first clause of Section 107 of the IPC.
Arguments
Arguments of the Appellants:
- The appellants argued that even based on the third respondent’s complaint, the deceased was under stress because he could not repay the loan and had received a legal notice for a dishonored cheque.
- They contended that the facts, even if taken as true, do not constitute an offense under Section 306 of the IPC.
- The appellants submitted that the deceased was under tension as he could not repay the amount borrowed by the third respondent and had received a notice from Sandeep, as cheque issued to Sandeep was dishonoured.
Arguments of the Respondents:
- The respondents argued that the allegations in the suicide note are sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the appellants.
- They submitted that whether an offense under Section 306 of the IPC is made out can only be decided after evidence is presented.
- The respondents supported the impugned judgment of the High Court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellants) | Sub-Submission (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Whether an offense under Section 306 of IPC is made out | The deceased was under stress due to debt and notice. The acts of the appellants do not constitute instigation. | The allegations in the suicide note are sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Whether an offense is made out can only be decided after evidence. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the actions of the appellants constituted abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the actions of the appellants constituted abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. | No | The Court held that the alleged acts of the appellants did not amount to instigation to commit suicide. The incident of assault and abuse happened more than two weeks before the suicide, and there was no direct link between those acts and the suicide. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the offense of abetment of suicide. The court interpreted this section in the context of the facts of the case.
- Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines abetment. The court particularly focused on the first clause of this section which deals with instigation.
- Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: This section deals with dishonor of cheques. The court noted that a notice under this section was issued to the deceased.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Section 306, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | The Court interpreted this section to determine if the actions of the appellants constituted abetment to suicide. |
| Section 107, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | The Court focused on the first clause of this section, which deals with instigation, to determine if the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. |
| Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 | The Court noted that a notice under this section was issued to the deceased, contributing to his stress. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants: The deceased was under stress due to debt and notice. The acts of the appellants do not constitute instigation. | The Court agreed that the facts did not constitute instigation to commit suicide. |
| Respondents: The allegations in the suicide note are sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Whether an offense is made out can only be decided after evidence. | The Court disagreed, stating that the alleged acts of the appellants did not amount to instigation and that continuing prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law. |
The Court observed that the incident of the first appellant’s alleged assault and abuse occurred on June 15, 2017, more than two weeks before the suicide on July 4, 2017. The court stated that:
“Neither in the complaint of the third respondent nor in the suicide note , it is alleged that after 15th June 2017 , the appellants or Sandeep either met or spoke to the third respondent and her deceased husband.”
The Court held that to constitute instigation, the act must be of such intensity that it pushes the deceased to a point where they have no choice but to commit suicide. The Court noted that:
“Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.”
The Court concluded that the alleged acts of the appellants did not amount to instigation to commit suicide. The Court stated that:
“By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of direct and proximate link between the actions of the appellants and the deceased’s suicide. The Court emphasized that for an act to constitute abetment of suicide, there must be a clear instigation that directly leads the person to take their own life. The Court found that the time gap between the alleged assault and the suicide, coupled with the absence of any further interaction between the appellants and the deceased, negated the claim of instigation.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of proximate link between the appellants’ actions and the suicide | 60% |
| Time gap between the alleged assault and the suicide | 30% |
| Absence of direct instigation | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
Alleged Assault and Abuse by Appellants
Time Gap of More than Two Weeks
No Further Interaction Between Appellants and Deceased
Lack of Proximate Link to Suicide
No Instigation to Commit Suicide
Quashing of Charges under Section 306 IPC
Key Takeaways
- Demanding repayment of a loan, even with harsh words, does not automatically constitute abetment to suicide.
- For an act to be considered instigation to commit suicide, it must be of such intensity that it pushes the person to take their own life, and it must be in close proximity to the act of suicide.
- A time gap between the alleged act and the suicide, without further direct interaction, weakens the claim of instigation.
- The prosecution must establish a direct link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s suicide to prove abetment.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and quashed the summoning order dated 23rd January 2019 in Criminal Case No. 454 of 2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, District Dehradun.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court clarified that for an act to constitute abetment of suicide, it must be a direct instigation that is closely linked to the act of suicide. This judgment reinforces the principle that not every act that may cause distress can be construed as abetment to suicide. The ratio decidendi of the case is that there must be a direct and proximate link between the act of the accused and the suicide for it to be considered abetment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the charges against the appellants. The Court held that the alleged acts of demanding repayment of a loan, using abusive language, and assault, which occurred more than two weeks before the suicide, did not constitute instigation to commit suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. This judgment emphasizes the need for a direct and proximate link between the accused’s actions and the act of suicide for charges of abetment to stand.