Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Justice A.K. Patnaik
Date of Judgement: January 5, 2010
Facts of the Case: The appellant, an agriculturist, had harassed his agriculture labor Ramulu(the deceased) by making an allegation that he had stolen some gold ornaments two days before he died. It was also alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs.7, 000/- from the deceased which was advanced to him when he was employed. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, who could not bear the harassment, committed suicide by consuming pesticides. The father of the deceased, P.W.1 Urikonda Jammanna stated that his son Ramulu was a farm servant and used to work in the house of the appellant. He also stated that the appellant gave Rs.7,000/- in advance to his son and around two years ago, the appellant had asked Ramulu that his wrist watch was missing from his house and harassed him on which his son had returned the watch to the appellant. P.W.1 also stated that the appellant also alleged that the gold ear-rings were also missing from his house which was stolen by Ramulu. He further stated that his son had committed suicide because the appellant had made the allegation of theft of ornaments. The mother of the deceased, Balamma was also examined by the prosecution as P.W.2 who corroborated the statement of P.W.1.
Issue of the Case: The appellant was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the conviction, he filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years to 5 years. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment, approached the Supreme Court.
Judgement: In India, suicide is not an offence because the offender is beyond the reach of law. Abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Code. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Anr. (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Supreme Court observed that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and similarly circumstanced individual in a given society were not expected commit suicide, the Court should not accuse a person for abetting the offence of suicide.
The court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24 dealt with the aspect of abetment. The court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicide pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
Ratio: In order to convict a person under section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed and disposed of. The conviction of the appellant could not be sustained.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS