Summary
The relatives of the deceased's wife were chargesheeted under Section 306 IPC on the strength of a suicide note describing a confrontation on 10.11.2013, about a month before the suicide on 09.12.2013, with no contact in between. The Supreme Court held that abetment requires a positive act of instigation or aid proximate to the suicide and visible mens rea; insulting words a month earlier do not suffice, so the proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process.
Issues
- Whether the allegations in the FIR and the suicide note make out the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC.
- Whether harassment or insults about a month before the suicide, with no contact in the interval, can amount to proximate instigation.
- Whether the High Court erred in declining to quash the chargesheet under Section 482 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860The offence requires a suicide and its abetment; the ingredients of abetment are those in Section 107. Established case law treats the essentials as (i) abetment and (ii) the accused's intention to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Highly insulting or abusive language does not by itself constitute abetment without evidence that the accused intended thereby to instigate suicide. On the facts, the element of abetment was absent, so the offence was not made out. (¶¶ 14, 15, 17, 19)
- Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860Abetment means instigation, engaging in a conspiracy followed by an act or illegal omission in pursuance of it, or intentionally aiding by an act or illegal omission. The Court found no positive act of instigation or aid by the appellants and held that mens rea must be ostensibly present and cannot be presumed. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Where the ingredients of the offence are absent and continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of court, the court will not hesitate to exercise its inherent power to quash; the High Court's refusal to do so was set aside and the sessions case quashed. (¶¶ 17, 18, 20)
Held
- To constitute abetment of suicide there must be a positive act of instigation or aid on the part of the accused, and the mens rea to instigate must be ostensibly present and visible; it cannot be presumed. Allegations of harassment a month before the suicide, with no contact of any kind between the accused and the deceased in the intervening period, show no proximate instigation and do not make out the offence under Section 306 IPC. (¶ 14)
- The ingredients of abetment for Section 306 are those of Section 107 IPC: instigation, conspiracy followed by an act or illegal omission, or intentional aid. Merely using highly insulting or abusive language towards the deceased does not by itself amount to abetment unless there is evidence that the accused intended by that act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Where the prosecution case rests on a suicide note from which the element of abetment is conspicuously absent, and the other material does not advance the case, continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law; the court will exercise its inherent power to quash rather than let the proceedings become an instrument of harassment or unjust prosecution. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment dated 13.04.2018 set aside; proceedings in S.C. No. 9 of 2016 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram, quashed; pending applications disposed of.