Supreme Court quashes conviction for abetment of suicide in domestic dispute: Velladurai vs. State (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2021
Citation: [Not Provided in the source]
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Aniruddha Bose, J.
Can a person be held responsible for abetment of suicide merely because of a quarrel? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a husband was convicted for abetting his wife’s suicide after a domestic dispute. The court examined whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose.

Case Background

The appellant, Velladurai, was married to the deceased for 25 years. They had three children: a married daughter (PW2) living separately, and two sons working in Chennai and Kerala. On 7 May 2007, a quarrel occurred between Velladurai and his wife. Following the quarrel, both consumed pesticide. While Velladurai survived, his wife died. The wife’s younger brother (PW1) filed a complaint alleging that Velladurai had an affair with another woman, which led to frequent quarrels and a prior panchayat. He stated that the couple consumed pesticide after a quarrel on 7 May 2007. Velladurai was charged under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Velladurai under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 2500 for the IPC offence, and three years of RI with a fine of Rs. 2500 for the offence under the Tamil Nadu Act. Velladurai appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC but reducing the sentence to three years RI.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the 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.”
• Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act: This section deals with the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. However, it does not apply in this case as the marriage was more than seven years old.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in upholding the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC.
• It was submitted that the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC were not satisfied, as there was no evidence of instigation.
• The appellant contended that the quarrel was not sufficient to prove abetment, especially since he also consumed pesticide.
• The daughter (PW2) turned hostile, not supporting the prosecution’s case.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707] and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605], arguing that mere harassment without positive action does not constitute abetment.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the quarrel on the day of the incident and previous quarrels due to the appellant’s alleged affair led to the wife’s suicide.
• The State contended that the frequent quarrels were sufficient to establish abetment.

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in highlighting the absence of direct instigation or active role in facilitating the suicide, emphasizing that a mere quarrel is insufficient to establish abetment under Section 306 of the IPC, as supported by precedent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the appellant-accused committed an offence under Section 306 of the IPC for which he has been convicted?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707] – Supreme Court of India. The Court held that mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited in support of the argument that instigation requires a direct and active role in facilitating the suicide.
• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – This section defines and penalizes the abetment of suicide.
• Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act – This section deals with the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman, but was not applicable in this case.

Judgment

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The Court emphasized that for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a case of suicide and the person abetting must have played an active role by instigating or facilitating the suicide.
• The Court cited Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707], stating that mere harassment without positive action does not amount to abetment.
• The Court noted that instigation can be inferred when the accused creates circumstances leaving the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. However, in this case, there was no such evidence.
• The Court highlighted that the appellant also attempted suicide, indicating no intention to instigate his wife’s suicide.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court followed Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707]* to hold that mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.
• The court followed Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605]* to hold that instigation requires a direct and active role in facilitating the suicide.
• The court interpreted Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)* to mean that abetment requires active instigation, not just a quarrel.
• The court found Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act* to be not applicable as the marriage was more than seven years old.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence demonstrating active instigation by the appellant. The court emphasized that a mere quarrel, without any positive action to instigate suicide, does not constitute abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. The court also noted that the appellant himself attempted suicide, further weakening the prosecution’s case for abetment.

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and precedents, particularly the interpretation of Section 306 of the IPC and the precedent set in Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707]. The factual aspects of the case, such as the quarrel and the appellant’s alleged affair, were considered, but were not deemed sufficient to establish abetment without clear evidence of instigation.

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the State’s argument that the frequent quarrels and the appellant’s alleged affair were sufficient to establish abetment. However, the Court rejected these interpretations, emphasizing that mere harassment without positive action to instigate suicide does not constitute abetment. The Court’s final decision was that the appellant’s actions did not meet the threshold for abetment under Section 306 of the IPC, and therefore, the conviction was set aside.

The Court’s decision was explained in clear, accessible language, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of instigation rather than relying on circumstantial evidence like quarrels. The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• There was no evidence of instigation or active role in facilitating the suicide.
• A mere quarrel, without any positive action to instigate suicide, does not constitute abetment under Section 306 of the IPC.
• The appellant also attempted suicide, indicating no intention to instigate his wife’s suicide.
• The prosecution failed to prove the allegation that the appellant had illicit relationship with another woman.

The judgment was unanimous. There were no dissenting opinions.

The reasoning of the court was that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The court also emphasized that the appellant himself had attempted suicide. The court also held that mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC. The Court’s interpretation of Section 306 of the IPC was that it requires active instigation, not just a quarrel.

The potential implications for future cases are that it clarifies the threshold for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. This judgment emphasizes that mere harassment or domestic disputes, without any direct instigation or active role in facilitating suicide, are not sufficient to establish abetment. This will likely lead to a stricter scrutiny of evidence in cases involving abetment of suicide, ensuring that convictions are based on concrete proof of instigation rather than circumstantial evidence.

There were no new doctrines or legal principles introduced in this case. The court relied on established legal principles and precedents to reach its decision. The court’s interpretation of Section 306 of the IPC was consistent with previous judgments, particularly Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707]. The court’s analysis focused on the application of existing legal principles to the specific facts of the case, rather than introducing any novel legal concepts.

“Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.”

“As observed and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu Pal (supra), mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.”

“In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment. There is no material on record that the appellant-accused played an active role by an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide.”

Key Takeaways

• A mere quarrel or domestic dispute is not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
• There must be clear evidence of instigation or an active role in facilitating the suicide for a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC.
• The prosecution must prove that the accused played an active role in instigating or facilitating the suicide, not just that there was a quarrel or harassment.
• Courts will likely require more concrete evidence of instigation in cases of abetment of suicide, rather than relying on circumstantial evidence.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant’s bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or an active role in facilitating the suicide. Mere harassment or a quarrel is not sufficient to establish abetment. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and clarifies the threshold for abetment of suicide, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of instigation rather than relying on circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The judgment emphasizes that mere harassment or a quarrel is not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide and that there must be clear evidence of instigation or an active role in facilitating the suicide. This case clarifies the legal requirements for proving abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC and highlights the need for concrete evidence of instigation.