Omnibus Allegations Without Specific Instances Of Harassment Not Sufficient To Attract Offense Of Abetment To Suicide: J&K High Court

Clarifying the essentials that need to proven to fasten the liability under this provision Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“In order to show that a person has abetted the commission of an offence, his intention must be visible. There must be something on record to establish or to show that the accused had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, he abetted the suicide of the deceased”.

Background of the Case:

The court was hearing a matter revolving around the death of Mohammad Amin Dar, who allegedly consumed poison and succumbed to his injuries weeks later. His daughter, Rubina Akhter, filed an FIR accusing her uncles (the deceased's brothers) of harassing him and creating hurdles in his attempt to transfer a property share to her. The FIR claimed this harassment drove the deceased to take his own life.

Assailing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings the petitioners, brothers of the deceased represented by Advocates Ms. Asifa Padroo and Ms. Saima Ghulam, contended that the FIR was baseless. They argued that the deceased had consumed poison on 24th May 2023 but no FIR was lodged until after his death, which indicated the falsity of the allegations. They further argued that even if the allegations were true, they did not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

The respondents, represented by Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, General Advocate, Ms. Rehana, Advocate contended that the petitioners, along with the local Patwari, conspired to create obstacles in the transfer of property from the deceased to his daughter. They claimed that this continuous harassment led the deceased to commit suicide.

Court Observations:

After meticulously analyzing the case Justice Dhar noted the necessary ingredients of Section 306(Abetment to Suicide) and Section 107(abetment) IPC and underscored that to convict someone under Section 306 IPC, it must be shown that the person abetted the commission of suicide with intention and a positive act of instigation.

Drawing support from M Arjunan vs. State (2019), Ude Singh & Ors vs. State of Haryana (2019) and Mariano Anto Bruno vs. Inspector of Police the court reiterated that mere harassment does not constitute abetment unless there is evidence of instigation to commit suicide. It further emphasised that proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide is necessary.

Commenting on the necessity to prove proximate positive action on part of accused to implicate him Justice Dhar explained,

“..in order to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC, there must be mens rea and actus reus, meaning thereby that there must be a positive act to instigate in aiding suicide. It must be shown that the accused had intentionally acted in a particular manner or had omitted to do an act which should be proximate to the occurrence of death”.

The court added that allegations of harassment without any positive action proximate to the suicide cannot sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC.

While perusing the material collected by the investigating agency the Court found that the allegations of harassment and conspiracy were unfounded based on the investigation as the revenue authorities had issued the necessary documents for the transfer of property, hence disproving claims of obstruction by the petitioners.

In conclusion, Justice Dhar quashed the FIR and the proceedings emanating from it, deeming them an abuse of the legal process.

Case Title: NAZIR AHMAD DAR & ORS Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 172

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment