The Supreme Court has highlighted the failure of courts to correctly interpret the law in abetment of suicide cases, leading to unnecessary prosecutions. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, in its order dated October 3, quashed criminal proceedings pending against three individuals in Lucknow, involved in an alleged abetment of suicide case.
Incorrect Legal Interpretation Leading to Prosecutions
The apex court observed that lower courts often fail to apply the correct legal principles in such cases. This, the court noted, results in people facing unnecessary harassment through prolonged trials. The bench emphasised that while courts should be mindful of the sentiments of the deceased’s family, their priority must be to ensure that individuals are not wrongfully prosecuted.
“The test that the court should adopt in these types of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether or not there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide,” the bench stated.
The court clarified that for a case to be prosecuted under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there must be direct and compelling evidence of incitement or encouragement from the accused that left the victim with no choice but to take their own life. Simply proving that a suicide occurred is insufficient.
Wrong Approach in Trials
The Supreme Court expressed concern over a common trend where courts only examine the fact of suicide and not the intent behind it. The bench noted that courts often wait until a full-fledged trial to determine the intention behind a crime, leading to unnecessary trials that could have been avoided by assessing the available materials more carefully.
“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 and accusation,” the court noted.
Details of the Case
The case under scrutiny involved three senior officials of a private firm. According to the complaint, the deceased had been working with the firm for 23 years and died by suicide in a Lucknow hotel in 2006. The deceased’s brother filed a First Information Report (FIR), alleging that the company’s management harassed the deceased for resisting a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), humiliating him and pushing him to take his own life.
The Allahabad High Court had previously rejected the appellants’ plea to quash the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court, however, found the High Court’s approach flawed, asserting that the mere allegation of humiliation and harassment, without substantial evidence of incitement, does not fulfil the criteria for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court held that prosecuting the appellants under the abetment charge would amount to an abuse of legal process, as no clear case was made against them. The bench quashed the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal filed by the accused, ending the legal proceedings against them.
This ruling has sparked discussions on the necessity of courts exercising more diligence when handling abetment of suicide cases, ensuring that allegations do not automatically lead to prolonged trials without sufficient evidence.