Unnecessary Prosecutions In Abetment Of Suicide Cases Due To Inability Of Courts To Apply Correct Principles Of Law : Supreme Court

While quashing an abetment to suicide case against senior officials of Hindustan Unilever Limited (“HUL”), the Supreme Court recently cautioned the courts as well as the police against the incorrect application of the principles governing abetment to suicide.

"Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full- fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation."

“The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions.”, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.

The Court said that the basic test to ascertain whether the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC was committed or not is to know whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide.

In this case, a criminal case was registered against the appellants that they had harassed and humiliated the deceased (salesman in HUL) in the meeting and asked him to take Voluntary Retirement from the Job. Such action on the part of the Appellants led the deceased to take extreme steps to commit suicide as he felt bad about it.

The High Court refused to quash the criminal case against the Appellants. According to the High Court, the deceased committed suicide on account of instigation in the form of harassment & humiliation at the end of the appellants. Following this, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

The question that appeared for the Court's consideration was whether the appellants could be said to have instigated the deceased that ultimately led him to commit suicide.

Before the Supreme Court, Sr. Adv. Gagan Gupta along with AoR Nikhil Jain representing the appellants contended that the requisite of Section 306 IPC was not fulfilled as the Appellants did not intend to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court observed that unless a direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused is proved no offence of abetment to suicide could be made out.

“The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide.”

Factors Need To Be Examined By Courts

Reverting to the facts of the case, the Court found the entire High Court approach incorrect. According to the Court, the High Court should have examined the matter keeping in mind the following:

“(a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did the appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the only escape? To ascertain this, the two statements of the deceased colleagues referred to by us were sufficient.

(b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or underserving of life leading him to commit suicide?

(c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out?

(d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due to public humiliation & loss of dignity."

From the conspectus of the decision undertaken, the Court noted that putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

"In our opinion, no case worth the name against the appellants is made out.", the court held.

Accordingly, the pending criminal case against the appellant was quashed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Case Title: Nipun Aneja and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 786

Click here to read/download the judgment