Supreme Court Upholds Charges of Abetment of Suicide: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2019)

Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 238
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a High Court discharge an accused of abetment of suicide charges when there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the accused harassed the deceased, leading to the suicide? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment. The Court overturned a High Court decision that had discharged the accused, emphasizing the need for a thorough trial when there is sufficient evidence to suggest abetment of suicide. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., with a bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Case Background

On August 9, 2017, Jyoti Sharma committed suicide by consuming poison at her residence in Neemuch. She was immediately taken to the District hospital. While in the hospital, a dying declaration was recorded in the presence of the Naib Tehsildar, Neemuch. In her dying declaration, Jyoti stated that she was unable to secure employment because Deepak Bhamawat, the respondent, was causing her to be terminated from her jobs. She also stated that Deepak had previously molested her, leading to a case being filed against him, and that he had been harassing her since then. Jyoti Sharma passed away on August 10, 2017, at a hospital in Udaipur. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered on August 16, 2017, and the respondent was arrested on September 6, 2017. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on September 22, 2017, against the respondent under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Special Judge, Neemuch, framed charges on January 10, 2018. The respondent then filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court challenging the order framing charges.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Judge, Neemuch, framed charges against the respondent under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Challenging this order, the respondent filed a Criminal Revision before the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order and discharged the respondent, stating there was no evidence of provocation, incitement, or encouragement for the deceased to commit suicide. The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with abetment of suicide. According to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
“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 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which addresses offences against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Court also considered the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allows the High Court to review the legality and regularity of proceedings before lower courts.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Madhya Pradesh:

• The Deputy Advocate General argued that the High Court should not have discharged the respondent as there was a dying declaration from the deceased stating that the respondent was harassing her.
• The State argued that the investigation revealed the respondent had taken a loan in the deceased’s name by forging her signature, leading to a notice from the Central Bank for repayment.
• The State also contended that the deceased had filed three complaints against the respondent, alleging harassment.
• The State argued that the respondent caused the deceased to be terminated from her job and evicted from her residence, which contributed to her taking the extreme step.

Arguments by the Respondent:

• The respondent’s counsel argued that the FIR only mentioned that the respondent got the deceased terminated from her job and harassed her for not depositing loan installments.
• The respondent’s counsel contended that the FIR did not contain any evidence of provocation, inducement, or incitement that would amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The respondent’s counsel argued that the High Court was correct in concluding that there was no intention on the part of the respondent to cause the deceased to commit suicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in discharging the respondent of the charges framed by the Special Judge, Neemuch.
2. Whether there was sufficient material on record to uphold the order framing charges by the Trial Court.
3. Whether the High Court ignored the material that emerged during the course of the investigation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Amit Kapoor v Ramesh Chander [ (2012) 9 SCC 460]*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and should not be exercised in a routine manner. The High Court should not interfere unless there is a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.
• State of Rajasthan v Fatehkaran Mehdu [ (2017) 3 SCC 198]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to reiterate that at the stage of framing a charge, the court is not concerned with the proof of the allegation but rather with whether there is a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offense.
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2009) 16 SCC 605]*: The Court referred to this case to explain the ingredients of abetment of suicide. It highlighted that if the accused’s conduct creates circumstances where the deceased has no option but to commit suicide, it can be inferred as instigation.
• Rajbir Singh v State of U P [ (2006) 4 SCC 519]*: The Supreme Court used this case to underscore that the High Court must ascertain whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or if there is a ground for presuming that the offense has been committed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The dying declaration of the deceased, which clearly stated that the respondent was harassing her and causing her to lose jobs.
• The multiple complaints filed by the deceased against the respondent, indicating a pattern of harassment.
• The allegations that the respondent had taken a loan in the deceased’s name through fraudulent means, further contributing to her distress.
• The fact that the respondent was alleged to have caused the deceased’s termination from employment and eviction from her residence.
• The High Court’s failure to consider the entire material on record and its interference at the stage of framing charges.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court only needs to determine if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offense, not whether the accused is likely to be convicted. The High Court should not have interfered at this stage unless there was a clear error of law or a patent defect in the trial court’s order. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to consider the entire material on record and had incorrectly applied the principles for exercising revisional jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court stated, “The High Court has evidently ignored what has emerged during the course of the investigation.” and “The material indicates that several complaints were filed by the deceased. The last of them was filed a few days before the suicide.” and “There is a dying declaration.”

The Court analyzed the facts, evidence, and legal precedents to conclude that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court also noted that the High Court had failed to apply the correct legal tests for interfering with the trial court’s order framing charges. The Court did not find any alternative interpretation that would justify discharging the accused at this stage.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should exercise their revisional jurisdiction with caution, especially at the stage of framing charges.
• At the stage of framing charges, the court only needs to determine if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offense, not whether the accused is likely to be convicted.
• A dying declaration is a crucial piece of evidence and should be given due consideration.
• A pattern of harassment and a series of actions that lead to a person feeling helpless can amount to abetment of suicide.
• Courts should consider the cumulative effect of the circumstances and not just isolated events when determining if the charge of abetment of suicide is made out.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the established legal principles regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Courts and the considerations for framing charges in abetment of suicide cases. The ratio decidendi of the case is that High Courts should not interfere with the trial court’s order framing charges unless there is a clear error of law or a patent defect in the order. The judgment also clarifies that at the stage of framing charges, the court only needs to determine if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offense, not whether the accused is likely to be convicted. There is no change in the previous position of law, but rather a reaffirmation of existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak sets aside the High Court’s order discharging the accused and reinstates the charges framed by the trial court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had overstepped its revisional jurisdiction and had failed to consider the material on record. The judgment underscores the importance of a fair trial and the need to consider all relevant evidence when determining if the charge of abetment of suicide is made out. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial, ensuring that the case is decided on its merits.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Abetment of Suicide, Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Revisional Jurisdiction, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: What is abetment of suicide?
A: Abetment of suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, means that someone has intentionally encouraged or helped another person to commit suicide. This can include actions, words, or even a continuous pattern of behavior that leaves the person with no other option but to end their life.

Q: What is a dying declaration?
A: A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is aware that their death is imminent. It is considered crucial evidence in a court of law, especially if it pertains to the cause of their death.

Q: What is the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court?
A: The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court allows it to review the legality and regularity of proceedings before lower courts. This power is granted under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, this power is not to be exercised routinely and is limited to cases where there is a clear error of law or a patent defect in the lower court’s order.

Q: What does it mean to “frame charges”?
A: Framing charges is a stage in a criminal trial where the court formally states the specific offenses that the accused is alleged to have committed. It is based on the evidence and material presented during the investigation.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s main point in this case?
A: The Supreme Court’s main point was that the High Court had overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by discharging the accused at the stage of framing charges. The Supreme Court emphasized that there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial and that the High Court should not have interfered at this stage.