Inability On The Part Of The Courts To Understand And Apply Correct Principles Of Law To The Cases Of Abetment Of Suicide Leads To Unnecessary Prosecutions: SC

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra cautioned the courts and the police against the incorrect application of the principles governing abetment to suicide. It said, “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 SC bench said this while quashing an abetment to suicide case against senior officials of the HUL (Hindustan Unilever Limited). The bench added, “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 added, “The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavor to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide.” 

In this case, the deceased (salesman in HUL) was harassed and humiliated by the appellants in the meeting. The appellants asked the deceased to take Voluntary Retirement from the job. This action on the part of the appellants led the deceased to commit suicide as he felt bad about the same. The matter was first heard by the High Court which refused to quash the criminal 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. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was mentioned before the top court. The question for consideration was “...in what manner the appellants could be said to have instigated the deceased that ultimately led him to commit suicide.” The SC observed, “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.” It also highlighted certain factors required to be examined by Courts while dealing with the case:

• “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 colleagues of the deceased referred to by us were sufficient.
• 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?
• 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?
• 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.”

The Supreme Court bench set aside the decision of the HC and quashed the pending criminal case against the appellant.