S. 306 IPC | Merely Being Named In Suicide Note Doesn't Establish Guilt Of Accused, Proximate Link Between Alleged Abetment & Suicide A Must: P&H HC

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi has held that in addition to there being a requirement of mens rea pointing to instigation by the accused to goad the deceased into committing suicide, there must be a proximate and live link present between such abetment and the consequent suicide, to establish the offence of abetment to suicide under S.306 of IPC.

The facts of the case are as follows: A petition had been filed in Punjab and Haryana High Court praying for quashing of FIR dated May 2019 where the accused had been charged with S.306 and S.34 of IPC and further quashing of a report under S.173(8) CrPC. The contents of the FIR were that one Jaswinder Singh had found that his son had committed suicide by hanging from the girder by tying a bed sheet around his neck and a note was found in front of his chest stating that he had committed suicide because of harassment by the petitioner accused.

The deceased son (Manjit Lal/Lucky) had registered an FIR in February 2019 detailing the assault inflicted on him by the petitioner's brother in law and 6-7 other persons when the petitioner accused was reversing his vehicle. Manjit Lal was then admitted to civil hospital, Jalandhar where after conducting X-rays, a bilateral nasal bone fracture was detected. And then three months later, Manjit Lal had committed suicide.

In the present case, the counsel for the petitioner argues that even when the FIR and suicide note had been perused in their entirety, no offence under S.306 was made out against the petitioner. This derivation arose from two rationalities. First, the petitioner accused was not named in the FIR filed by Manjit Singh regarding his own assault.

Secondly, the counsel asserted that even if the contents of the suicide note were to be considered without any fallacy, the question regarding abetment of suicide by the petitioner accused does not arise as the last contact between them was in February 2019.

Referring to the three-month gap between the alleged threat and the consequent suicide, the learned counsel for petitioner insinuated that since there is no proximate link between the two, in addition to the fact that the previous FIR did not mention petitioner-accused and that even the cause of death had not been established, therefore, the subsequent proceedings including the FIR must be quashed.

Counsel for respondents however stated that the FIR and suicide note clearly established on a combined reading that petitioner and other co-accused were involved in harassing and threatening the disease which ultimately drove him to commit suicide. Referring to the report of the handwriting expert stating that the suicide note was authored by the diseased and the report confirming the cause of death to be 'asphyxia', the learned counsel asserted that the prima facie offence had been established and thus petition must be dismissed.

The Court first referred to S.306 (Abetment of suicide) and S.107 (Abetment of a thing) in IPC and defined abetment. The Court then referred to the Apex Court's judgments in Sanju @Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the apex court had stated that not only is the presence of mens rea absolutely necessary to instigation, the apex court had further added that the words uttered in a quarrel or words uttered in the spur of a moment could not be taken to be laced with mens rea.

Adding that the word instigation implies urging someone to take a drastic step, the Supreme Court, in this case, had stated that the attempted suicide must have a proximate link with the alleged harassment/assault and that even a gap of two-three days between the two would not amount to abetment.

The High Court further referred to the Apex Court's judgments in Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., and Gurcharan Singh v. the State of Punjab, where it had been held that "to constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide are imperative and any severance or absence of these constituents would militate against this indictment." Further stating that "Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment.", the Supreme Court had succinctly put that "S.306 of IPC criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide."

Thus, after a thorough perusal of the aforementioned judgments, the High Court concluded that since there was a more than three months gap between the alleged harassment and the consequent suicide and the absolute lack of evidence of petitioner's harassing the deceased within those three months, the ingredients of the offence of abetment to suicide are not fulfilled.

Further averring to the fact that there was nothing on record establishing that the petitioner had contacted the deceased or his family between these three months, the proximate and live link between the threats and the subsequent suicide is missing and thus, from the evidence on record, there is nothing to show that the petitioner accused intended to push the deceased into instigating and committing suicide.

Stating that, "In the absence of any mens rea to instigate or goad the deceased to commit suicide and further, in the absence of a live link between the threats of February 2019 vis-à-vis the occurrence of suicide, which took place in May 2019, the prosecution case qua the petitioner cannot be sustained", the Court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings including the report under S.173(8) of CrPC, qua the petitioner.

Case: Harbhajan Sandhu v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 31

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Krishna Singh Dadwal

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab and Mr. J.S. Ghuman, Advocate