The judgment was delivered in a case involving a man and his family members accused of abetting the suicide of his 25-year-old wife. The court observed that such instigation or incitement must proof clear mens rea (criminal intent) and create a situation where the victim felt they had no other option but to die by suicide.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday (20th Dec) emphasized the necessity of establishing proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation by the accused to attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan ruled that to sustain a charge under Section 306, it must be proven that the accused contributed to the suicide through direct or indirect acts in close proximity to the commission of the act.
Brief Facts
The judgment was delivered in a case involving a man and his family members accused of abetting the suicide of his 25-year-old wife. The court observed that such instigation or incitement must proof clear mens rea (criminal intent) and create a situation where the victim felt they had no other option but to die by suicide.
The bench clarified that abetment requires a mental process of instigation or intentional aid to commit a specific act. Without apparent mens rea on record, a charge under Section 306 cannot be sustained.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband, his father, and brother challenging the Bombay High Court’s October 2022 decision, which had dismissed their plea against a trial court order refusing discharge from the case. The appellants were also charged under Section 34 (common intention) of IPC.
The court noted that although the case involved the tragic loss of a young woman’s life, there was insufficient evidence to prove the accused intended to push her to the brink of suicide. It held that continuing criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the legal process and allowed the appeal.
The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by the deceased woman’s mother, alleging physical and mental torture by her matrimonial family after her marriage in 2009. The complaint also referenced a maha lokadalat (mega mediation) in February 2015, where the parties had failed to reach a compromise.
However, the court pointed out a significant gap between the alleged instigation at the lokadalat on February 17, 2015, and the woman’s suicide on March 20, 2015. It ruled that this gap rendered the alleged instigation or incitement irrelevant, breaking the necessary nexus between the two events.
Citing established precedents, the bench reiterated that instigation or incitement is the crux of abetment of suicide and must be closely linked in time to the act of suicide itself.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
