Summary
Four persons were convicted under Sections 306 and 114 IPC for abetting the suicide of a postal employee who, according to a suicide note that surfaced twenty days after his death, had been blackmailed with compromising photographs. The Supreme Court acquitted them: the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, the doubtful emergence of the note, inconsistencies among the witnesses, the absence of any recovery of the money, ornaments or poison, and the failure to examine the handwriting expert undermined the prosecution, and in any event no act of incitement proximate to the suicide was attributed to the accused.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants abetted the suicide of the deceased by blackmailing him, so as to sustain conviction under Sections 306 and 114 IPC.
- Whether the suicide note, which surfaced twenty days after the death and whose authorship rested on an unexamined handwriting expert's report, could be relied upon.
- Whether any positive act of instigation or incitement proximate to the time of the suicide was attributed to the appellants.
Provisions considered
- Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860If a person commits suicide, whoever abets its commission is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years and fine. The crucial word is 'abets'; the Court held that without a positive proximate act instigating or aiding the suicide, and without clear mens rea, a conviction cannot be sustained. (¶¶ 15, 16, 22, 45)
- Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860Abetment consists of instigating a person, engaging in a conspiracy for the doing of the thing, or intentionally aiding by act or illegal omission; Explanation 1 treats wilful misrepresentation or concealment as instigation and Explanation 2 treats facilitation as aid. Applied with the precedents on 'instigation' (goading, urging, provoking) and the requirement of proximity. (¶¶ 16, 18, 19, 21)
- Section 114, Indian Penal Code, 1860A person who, if absent, would be liable as an abettor is deemed to have committed the offence if present when it is committed. Treated as an explanation or clarification of Section 107; the appellants were admittedly not present at the time or place of the death. (¶¶ 11.1, 17)
- Section 309, Indian Penal Code, 1860Attempt to commit suicide is itself an offence; once the suicide is complete the person is beyond the reach of the law, so it is the abettor who is penalised under Section 306. (¶ 15)
Held
- Abetment of suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding him to do the act. 'Instigation' means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage, and may be inferred where the accused's conduct leaves the deceased with no option but suicide, but words uttered in anger without intending the consequence are not instigation. A conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on an allegation of harassment without a positive act, proximate to the time of the suicide, which led or compelled the deceased to take the step; the act must be such that the deceased was left with no alternative, and a clear mens rea to abet the suicide is essential. Even a gap of forty-eight hours between abusive language and the suicide has been held not proximate. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 25.1)
- The complaint was lodged twenty days after the death and the delay remained unexplained, which had a material bearing; till then only the inquest and post-mortem had been done. The head constable deposed that no suicide note was found at the inquest or produced at the police station; the informant (PW-2) admitted the note was found by the deceased's elder brother (PW-7), remained with him till the complaint, and that she learnt of it only the next day, while no note was found when the panchnama was drawn; PW-7 turned hostile. PW-2's account of what she found on reaching home was self-contradictory and PW-6 and PW-7 each said the other had informed him. No jewellery, cheques, cheque book or passbook were recovered from the accused, so the very substratum of the blackmail story collapsed. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- In a case of death by poisoning, whether homicidal or suicidal and based on circumstantial evidence, recovery of the trace of the poison consumed is of critical importance; here no bottle or container was recovered and the prosecution could not show where the deceased procured the poison. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39)
- The handwriting expert who opined that the note was in the deceased's hand was not examined and the accused did not admit the report. Expert evidence on handwriting is opinion evidence that can rarely take the place of substantive evidence, calls for caution and ordinarily for corroboration, and where a court chooses to rely on the expert's report it must examine the expert so that the accused can cross-examine him. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43, 44)
- Even taking the suicide note as correct and genuine, no act of incitement by the appellants proximate to the date of the suicide, of a nature leaving the deceased no alternative, was shown; no offence of abetment of suicide was made out. (¶ 45)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment dated 17.12.2013 and the trial court's judgment dated 12.05.2011 set aside; the appellants, already on bail, have their bail bonds discharged.