Summary
The Supreme Court discharged a loan-recovery agent charged under Section 306 IPC after a guarantor of a loan died by suicide, holding that pressing for repayment in the course of his duty, even in heated and abusive exchanges, did not show intent to instigate suicide, and cautioning police and trial courts against mechanically invoking Section 306.
Issues
- Whether the suicide note, witness statements and transcripts of calls showing the appellant pressing the deceased, a guarantor, to repay a loan disclosed grounds to frame a charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
- What threshold of instigation or intentional aid must be shown for Section 306 IPC to be attracted.
Provisions considered
- Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court reiterated the high threshold for abetment of suicide, requiring an active act of instigation or facilitation with mens rea, and found no ground to frame a charge even taking the prosecution case at its highest. It noted the provision now corresponds to Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (¶¶ 11, 16, 19, 20, 21)
- Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860Abetment requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid; instigation means goading or inciting with reasonable certainty, and the appellant's recovery demands did not meet it. (¶¶ 12, 14, 17, 18)
Held
- To attract Section 306 IPC the accused must have played an active role by instigating or by doing some act to facilitate the suicide, with a clear mens rea; mere allegations of harassment, without positive action proximate to the occurrence that left the deceased with no option, are insufficient. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Instigation requires that the accused, by act, omission or a continued course of conduct, created circumstances leaving the deceased no option except suicide; words uttered in anger or emotion without intending the consequence do not amount to instigation. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Even taking the prosecution case at its highest, no charge under Section 306 could be framed: the suicide note showed only that the appellant sought repayment of a loan the deceased had guaranteed, and a person realising outstanding dues at his employer's behest in performance of his duty cannot be said to instigate suicide; the transcripts, though heated, did not show intent to leave the deceased no option but suicide. The Court also noted the FIR was lodged two months and twenty days late. (¶ 19)
- Section 306 IPC is too readily invoked by the police; it should not be used merely to assuage the feelings of a distraught family, exchanges should be judged by day-to-day realities with hyperbole not treated as instigation, investigating agencies should be sensitised to the law, and trial courts should not adopt a 'play it safe' approach by mechanically framing charges. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's order dated 25.07.2023 set aside; appellant discharged and Sessions Case No. 19 of 2023 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone quashed.