This article is written by Anusha Misra from NALSAR University of Law. This article evaluates whether words spoken in anger amount to abetment of suicide.
Table of Contents
The word suicide (felo de se in Latin) implies the deliberate ending of one’s own life. In the case of M.Mohan v. State (2011), the Supreme Court expressed that the term ‘sui’ signifies self, and ‘cide’ signifies killing, inferring self-killing. Thinkers, moralists and sociologists have not concurred on what establishes suicide. This is because suicide might be depicted by various networks contrastingly relying upon the conditions and socio-strict practices predominant.
Suicide or self-annihilation is a common incident affecting people of all classes throughout the globe. It is an exceptional crime where both the accused and victim are the same person. This crime has been elaborated in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and provides for the punishment as well to control further commission of offences. Attempt to suicide and abetment of suicide are two different concepts that are punishable under Section 306 and Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 306 deals with the punishment for abetment of suicide while section 309 punishes for the attempt to commit suicide.
The term ‘abetment’ in criminal law indicates that there is a distinction between the person abetting the commission of an offence (or abettor) and the actual perpetrator of the offence or the principal offence or the principal offender.
What is instigation
In the case of Ramesh Kumar v, State of Chhattisgarh (2001), the Supreme Court clarified the term ‘instigation’ and expressed that – “instigation is to spur, ask forward, incite, actuate or urge to do a demonstration”.
To fulfil the prerequisite of instigation, however, it’s anything but important that real words should be utilized with that impact.
In the case of Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2018), it was observed that the word ‘instigation’ signifies to counsel or make a decent attempt to convince someone to accomplish something and to make an individual move all the more rapidly or in a specific way.
To establish abetment, it should be shown that the accused continued encouraging or irritating the deceased by words, insults until the deceased responded. Besides, the accused had the goal to incite or ask or urge the perished to end it all while acting in the way noted previously. Without a doubt, the presence of mens rea is urging.
In this way, to bring a case within the domain of Section 306 of IPC there should be an instance of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the individual who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide, and more likely than not, assumed a functioning part by a demonstration of urging the commission of suicide.
In the case M.Mohan v. State, it was held that abetment includes a psychological interaction of prompting an individual or deliberately supporting an individual in doing something. Without a positive follow up on the piece of the condemned to induce or help in ending the individual’s life, the conviction cannot be supported.
Abetment of suicide of wedded ladies
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983 states that where a wedded young lady carries out suicide within seven years of her marriage, the court may assume that her better half and family members of her significant other had abetted her to carry out suicide by the prohibition of consolidation under Section 113A in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Based on legal announcements and obiter dicta, to convict an individual under Section 306 IPC there must be a reasonable mens rea to establish the offence. It is anything but a functioning demonstration or direct demonstration which drove the deceased to die by suicide.
Mens rea – an essential ingredient to establish offence under Section 306 of the IPC
In the case of Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of MP (2002), the Apex Court subdued the charge sheet for an offence under Section 306 of IPC to hold that the words articulated in a squabble or on the prod of second, can’t be taken to be expressed with mens rea.
In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr (2010), the Supreme Court mentioned some noteworthy facts on the law relating to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC. The court decided that – “Abetment includes a psychological interaction of inducing an individual or deliberately helping an individual in doing a thing. There must be an unmistakable mens rea to submit the offence”.
In the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. the State of Gujarat and Anr (2010), it was accepted that to draw out an offence suicide under Section 306 of IPC, express abetment as inspected by Section 107 of IPC concerning the accused of an assumption to accomplish the suicide of the individual stressed as a result of that abetment is required.
In the case Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab (2020), the Apex Court observed that the essential elements of Section 306 of IPC are self-destructive demise and the abetment thereof. To establish abetment, the expectation and contribution of the blamed to help or incite the commission of suicide is basic.
Contiguity, progression, culpability and complicity of the indictable demonstrations or oversight are the corresponding lists of abetments. Section 306 of IPC, in this way, condemns the supported impelling for self-destruction.
In the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004), the Supreme Court articulated the substance and implications of Section 306 IPC and believed that – “abetment includes a psychological interaction of affecting an individual or purposefully helping that individual in doing a thing. The more dynamic job which can be portrayed as inducing or helping the doing of a thing is needed before an individual can be supposed to abet the commission of an offence under Section 306 of IPC”.
In the case of the State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal (1993), the Supreme Court observed that the courts ought to be cautious in surveying current realities and conditions of each case and the proof illustrated in the preliminary to discover whether the accused is guilty of abetment.
The constitutional validity of Section 306, IPC
In the case of Naresh Morotrao v. Union of India (1994), the legitimacy of Section 306 was laid down. It is organized on the standard of public strategy that no individual ought to include himself in, or induce, or help the commission of wrongdoing.
Abettor versus perpetrator
With regards to abetment of suicide, the norm was that the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 309 had been rejected, hence no serious challenge survives for the constitutional validity of Section 306. It was also held that Section 306 enacts a separate offence that survives independently of Section 309. The apex court stated that the arguments for not punishing a person attempting suicide cannot be used to benefit a person who assisted a person who had committed suicide or attempted to. The law views the abettor differently from the perpetrator of the crime, as he abets the extinguishment of the life of another person.
However, other judgments of the Supreme Court also laid down guidelines regarding abetment of suicide.
In the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. The State of Gujarat, it was stated that baseless allegations could not be used for prosecution for a serious offence under Section 306. The court added that in such there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy to do so.
However, in a landmark and controversial judgment, the Rajasthan High Court, in Nikhil Soni v. Union of India (2015), declared that Santhara or Sallekhana was punishable under Sections 306 and 309. Santhara is a revered Jain practice of giving up food and water till one dies of starvation. There was an appeal made in the Supreme Court stating that it was improper and unwise to relate Santhara to suicide in concept and act. The plea said that this vow is not taken either in passion or in anger or deceit but is a conscious process of spiritual purification where one does not desire death but seeks to live his life in a manner to reduce the influx of karmas.
The international scenario of laws regarding abetment to suicide
A few nations and wards across the world like Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Kuwait, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, and Singapore have tough laws in regards to the offence of suicide.
- In England and Wales, the Suicide Act of 1961 has overcome law and order whereby it’s anything but wrongdoing for an individual to perpetrate suicide. Section 2(1) of the Act ascribes criminal risk for involvement in another’s suicide and makes the abettor obligated for the detainment which is for a term not surpassing fourteen years.
- In African nations like Botswana, supporting or abetting the suicide of someone else establishes a criminal offence named ‘Helping Suicide’.
- Gambian law denies endeavoured self-destruction. The country’s suicide laws are covered under the Gambian Penal Code.
- Consequently, abetment to suicide has been made culpable in a large portion of the nations and suicide is certifiably not an individual decision until impacted by others and thus the tough laws undermine the general public and control the commission of offences.
To constitute instigation, an abetment by the accused should be associated unequivocally. Assume, A says – “go, kick the bucket” to B, and B ends up falling to death accordingly. Here, A can’t be accused of abetment to suicide. First and foremost, A didn’t plan to affect B and just expressed the words furiously. In such a case, the court would investigate the person’s overall conduct towards B and decide the expectation.
In a similar case, if a spouse and his family have exposed the wife to persistent maltreatment since the marriage and drove her to end her life, they can be expected to take responsibility for the offence of abetment. Abetment must have a certain coherence, happening persistently throughout a reasonable timeframe. Suicide should likewise be an immediate outcome of incitement and can’t be a simple fortuitous event or exceptionally distant to the act of suicide.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court had, in Smt. Kamrunisha v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2018), held that words expressed out of resentment cannot be treated as an abetment to suicide.
The solicitor Kamrunisha had tested an argument enlisted against her under IPC 306 (abetment to suicide) after the individual with whom she had a supposed affair with committed suicide. As indicated by police, she was compelling her lover to marry her. On January 17 2020, she went to remain with him in his home and purportedly took steps to stop an FIR against him and his family if he would not marry her. She left after his relatives interceded, however, returned to his home on January 26 that year and supposedly rehashed the danger. The man committed suicide on January 28 2020, and police enrolled an FIR against her. Kamrunisha moved the high court.
The HC Judge said the accused had not uttered a word that might have driven him to end his life. She had not harmed him in any way, he stated, adding that if she had taken steps to hold up an FIR and was compelling him for marriage, he ought to have taken to alternative means as opposed to committing suicide.
Instigation cannot be defined as a word used in a fit of rage or emotion with no intention of the consequences occurring thereafter. If the court uncovers that a victim who committed suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary circumstances and differences in life that were common in the society to which the victim belonged, then the court’s conscience will be convicted, for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: