S.306 IPC | Direct Or Indirect Incitement Required For Abetment To Suicide Conviction, Only Allegations Of Harassment Are Insufficient: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings and FIR against a factory supervisor accused of abetting an employee's suicide.

The court found insufficient evidence of direct or indirect incitement by the accused to the suicide, noting that mere allegations of harassment without positive action proximate to the time of the incident do not justify a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Divyesh A Joshi, presiding over the case, observed, “It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide, however, merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction recorded under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be said to be just and legal.”“Therefore in view of the above discussions coupled with the facts and material of the case, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the so-called action taken upon the deceased at the factory premises, which is alleged to have stated in the diary maintained by the deceased,” Justice Joshi added

The above ruling came in response to an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereby the applicant sought to quash and set aside the FIR registered for the offences under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and subsequent proceeding pursuant to filing of the chargesheet pending before the court of the 9th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (City).

According to the FIR, the complainant's husband, Hashmukhbhai was an employee at Arvind Ltd., where the applicant, who was his superior officer, allegedly subjected him to discrimination and mental harassment by pressuring him regarding work and leave, which led Hashmukhbhai to commit suicide by hanging himself, thereby implicating the applicant in abetting the suicide and committing the alleged offences.

The primary argument advanced by the Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant was that the applicant was wrongly implicated in the FIR by the complainant, who is the widow of the deceased. The counsel contended that the applicant didn't commit any offence and pointed out that there was no supporting statement from independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution's case. The applicant's actions, as highlighted by the counsel, were in line with his duties aimed at the betterment of the company, and the reasons behind the deceased's suicide were known only to him, with no abetment for suicide at the applicant's hands.

On the other hand, the main argument advanced by the advocate appearing for the original complainant was that the deceased's suicide was directly caused by the mental harassment inflicted by the applicant. and the said fact was supported by the diary purportedly written by the deceased.

The Court, after hearing the counsels appearing for the respective parties and perusing the contents of the FIR, at the outset considered whether the ingredients of the alleged offences under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act were made out against the applicant.

The Court observed that the High Court possesses inherent power to act "ex debito justitiae," meaning to do real and substantial justice or to prevent abuse of the Court's process. It emphasized that while these powers are very wide, they impose a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in their exercise. The Court noted that it must ensure that any decision made under this power is grounded in sound principles. Furthermore, the Court stated that the inherent power should not be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution. However, it also affirmed that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it concludes that allowing the proceeding to continue would constitute an abuse of the Court's process or if the ends of justice demand that the proceeding be quashed.

The Court remarked that when an accused invokes the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash and set aside an FIR on the grounds that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the Court has a duty to scrutinize the FIR with care and in greater detail.

The Court clarified that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/ registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.

The Court observed that in order to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic and essential ingredients of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment and instigation on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established.

The Court further observed that the IPC does not define "suicide," but the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is self-killing. The Court stated, “The word is derived from a modern latin word suicidium, sui means oneself and cidium means killing. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of self-killing. In other words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Therefore considering the facts of the case, it is found out that the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are not made out in the present case.”

“There is absolutely no averment in the recital of the diary that the present appellant had caused any harm to him. It seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied for whatever reasons at his work place, therefore, it cannot be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide of the deceased. It is pertinent to note at this stage that an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of “abetment” have been stated in Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860, which is quoted hereinabove,” the Court further noted.

Expounding on Section 107, the Court explained that a person abets the doing of a thing if they instigate another person to do that thing, engage in a conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or intentionally aid any act or illegal omission in pursuance of that conspiracy.

The Court emphasized that the prosecution of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act was "ex facie illegal and unwarranted" because the entire charge sheet did not suggest that the offence under the IPC was committed by the applicant against the deceased based on his caste. The Court concluded that the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act were not present to justify the prosecution of the appellant.

The Court observed that the prosecution's case was entirely based on the diary purportedly written by the deceased before committing suicide. After a careful examination of the diary, which was part of the charge-sheet, the Court noted, “I have minutely perused the said diary, which is part of chargesheet papers, which clearly goes on to show that the deceased was disturb state of mind on account of work pressure and was apprehensive of various random factors unconnected to his work. However, such apprehensions expressed in the diary, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered sufficient to attribute to the applicant, an act or omission constituting the elements of abetment to commit suicide.”

On a minute perusal of the said diary, the Court found no evidence indicating any act or omission by the applicant that would make him responsible for abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. The Court further pointed out that even if the allegations in the FIR were assumed to be true, there was no proximate cause shown by the complainant that could link the accused to the deceased's decision to commit suicide.

Accordingly, it allowed the plea.

Case Title: Maheshbhai Dhirubhai Darji Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 116