Today, On 3rd October, The Supreme Court criticized an Allahabad High Court ruling related to abetment of suicide, overturning its decision to uphold criminal proceedings against Hindustan Unilever officials. The case involved charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court’s approach, leading to the dismissal of the charges.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Thursday, criticized the Allahabad High Court’s interpretation of the criminal offence of abetment of suicide.
A Division Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made this oral observation while overturning a High Court order that had upheld criminal proceedings against Hindustan Unilever officials under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Read Also: 1993 Abetment of Suicide Case| Supreme Court Acquitted Husband
The Bench remarked,
“High Court has no idea what constitutes an offence under Section 306 IPC!”
The case centered on allegations that an employee’s death by suicide caused by Hindustan Unilever’s recommendation for early retirement. The Allahabad High Court ruled that this recommendation amounted to abetment of suicide.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the company’s actions could not be viewed as instigating the employee to take their own life.
The Supreme Court further noted,
“Allowing criminal proceedings to continue under (Section) 306 will be a misuse and abuse of process of law. Appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside, proceedings pending in court … set aside,”
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) penalizes abetment of suicide, a provision now reflected in Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced the IPC as of July 1 this year.
Read Also: ‘Go Hang Yourself’ Not Necessarily Abetment of Suicide: Karnataka HC
The Supreme Court stressed that the legal threshold for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is specific and requires evidence that the accused deliberately encouraged or provoked the individual to commit suicide. Merely recommending early retirement, the Court argued, did not amount to instigating or inciting the employee’s decision to end their life.
The Supreme Court’s ruling not only quashed the criminal proceedings but also reinforced the necessity of clear legal interpretation when dealing with sensitive issues like suicide and abetment.