Supreme Court quashes abetment to suicide charges: State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu & Ors. (2019) INSC 885 (October 18, 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: October 18, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 885

Judges: Indu Malhotra, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can harsh words alone lead to a conviction for abetment of suicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a young woman tragically took her own life after being verbally abused. This judgment clarifies the legal boundaries of what constitutes abetment, emphasizing the need for a direct link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide. The bench comprised of Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case revolves around the tragic suicide of a young woman who was an artist. To improve her English, she was tutored by the first respondent, Indrajit Kundu. Over time, they developed a close relationship and planned to marry. On March 5, 2004, the victim visited Indrajit’s home to finalize their marriage plans. However, Indrajit’s parents, the second and third respondents, allegedly insulted her, calling her a “call-girl” and stating they would not allow their son to marry her. The victim returned home, deeply distressed, and committed suicide the next day, March 6, 2004.

The victim left behind two suicide notes. One note mentioned the abuse by Indrajit’s parents, and the other, addressed to Indrajit, called him a coward for not defending her. Following the incident, a case was registered against all three respondents under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for abetment to suicide.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the accused-respondents applied for discharge, which was rejected by the Trial Court on April 19, 2007. They then filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court, which directed them to raise their points before the Trial Court. At the stage of framing charges, the respondents objected, arguing that no case was made out against them under Section 306/34 of the IPC. The Additional District and Sessions Judge overruled these objections on September 4, 2008, stating there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction. The respondents then approached the High Court again under Sections 401/482 Cr.P.C.

The High Court, in its impugned order dated July 30, 2019, set aside the Trial Court’s order and discharged the respondents. The High Court reasoned that calling the deceased a “call-girl” did not constitute instigation, goading, or solicitation to commit suicide.

Legal Framework

The case primarily concerns Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide. Section 306 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 IPC, 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.”

The court’s analysis focused on whether the actions of the accused constituted “instigation” as defined under Section 107 of the IPC, which is a crucial element for establishing abetment under Section 306 of the IPC.

Arguments

Appellant (State of West Bengal):

• The victim was in a relationship with the first respondent and visited his house to finalize their marriage.
• The parents of the first respondent, respondents 2 and 3, verbally abused the victim, calling her a “call-girl,” which caused her distress.
• The victim’s suicide notes clearly indicate that the respondents’ actions led to her taking her own life.
• The respondents’ conduct and utterances constituted abetment of suicide, justifying charges under Section 306/34 of the IPC.
• Relied on the judgments in the cases of Soma Chakravarty vs. State [1(2007) 5 SCC 403] and Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal [2(1979) 3 SCC 4] to argue that there was sufficient material to frame charges against the respondents.

Respondents (Accused):

• The second respondent passed away during the pendency of the appeal, and therefore the appeal stands abated so far as he is concerned.
• The High Court correctly discharged the respondents as there was no material to frame charges under Section 306/34 of the IPC.
• The High Court’s decision was well-reasoned and should not be interfered with.
• The utterances by the parents of the first respondent do not constitute instigation, goading, or solicitation for the victim to commit suicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondents of the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Abetment of suicide.
• Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Definition of abetment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Anr. [31995 Supp (3) SCC 438] to establish that words spoken in anger do not directly cause suicide.
• The Court used Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh [4(2001) 9 SCC 618] to define “instigation,” stating that it requires an intention to incite the consequence, which was absent in this case.
• Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. [5(2002) 5 SCC 371] was used to show that a time gap between a quarrel and suicide weakens the link between the two events.
• The Court distinguished Soma Chakravarty vs. State [1(2007) 5 SCC 403] and Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal [2(1979) 3 SCC 4], stating that while a prima facie case is needed to frame charges, the facts did not establish abetment.
• The Court distinguished Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (NCT) of Delhi [6(2009) 16 SCC 605], clarifying that instigation can be inferred if the accused’s actions leave the deceased with no option but suicide, but the facts of the present case did not show such circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of direct instigation or goading by the accused towards the victim to commit suicide. The Court emphasized that while the words used by the respondents were harsh and abusive, they did not demonstrate an intention to incite the victim to end her life. The Court also considered the time gap between the incident and the suicide, which weakened the causal link between the two events. The Court’s reasoning focused on the legal interpretation of abetment, requiring a clear intention to provoke suicide, which was absent in this case.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of abetment and the analysis of precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as whether the abusive language could be seen as a form of instigation. However, they rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that the law requires a clear intention to incite suicide, not just harsh words. The Court also considered the time gap between the abuse and the suicide, finding that it weakened the causal link.

The decision was reached by applying the legal definition of abetment as defined in Section 107 of the IPC and by analyzing the precedent cases. The Court concluded that the facts of the case did not meet the legal threshold for abetment.

The Court concluded that the High Court was correct in discharging the accused. There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The suicide committed by the victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on part of respondents nor can it be said that commission of suicide by the victim was the only course open to her due to action of the respondents.”

“A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

“There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Verbal abuse alone does not constitute abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
• For abetment to be established, there must be a clear intention to incite the victim to commit suicide, not merely harsh words or abusive language.
• A time gap between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide can weaken the causal link required for abetment.
• The courts will look for direct instigation, goading, or solicitation to commit suicide, not just a general sense of distress or disturbance.
• This judgment reinforces the need for a high threshold for proving abetment to suicide, ensuring that individuals are not held responsible for the extreme actions of others unless there is a clear and direct link.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an act to constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be a clear intention to incite the victim to commit suicide. Harsh words or abusive language alone are not sufficient for abetment. This judgment reinforces the existing legal framework and does not represent a change in the previous position of law, but rather clarifies its application in cases involving verbal abuse and suicide.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to discharge the accused. The Court emphasized that while the words used by the respondents were harsh, they did not meet the legal threshold for abetment of suicide. The judgment underscores the importance of a direct link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide, requiring a clear intention to incite the victim to end their life. This case serves as a reminder that not every instance of harsh language or abuse will constitute abetment, and the legal standard for proving such charges is high.