Context:
The Supreme Court said recently that police and courts must avoid “unnecessary prosecutions” in cases of abetment of suicide allegedly from the workplace. This was the case of a salesman who had seemed to take his life due to harassment by senior officers at his company.
Relevance:
GS II: Polity and Governance
Dimensions of the Article:
- Background of the current case
- Abetment of suicide
- Supreme Court’s Ruling on Abetment of Suicide
Background of the current case
- In FIR, it is alleged that senior officers of a company had “force” and “coerced” a salesman, Rajeev Jain to select the VRS in the year 2006.
- Over the past 23 years, Jain had seen continued pressure from his senior officers, including his team leader wherein he continued to decline the VRS.
- Later, Jain hanged himself in a suicide bid. His brother, Rajnish, filed a case against the senior officers of abating Jain’s suicide.
- The officers filed their plea for quashing the case in the Allahabad High Court. Quashing the officers’ plea it was noticed that the meeting in which Jain was made to feel “humiliated and threatened” directly led to his eventual suicide.
- The SC ruling comes in this background.
Abetment of suicide
- Abetment of suicide is the act of encouraging, inciting or giving help to another to commit suicide.
Abetment IPC and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023
- ‘Abetment’: Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), is the same as Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
- A person abets the doing of a thing, if he:
- Instigates any person to do that thing, or
- Engages with one or more others in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or
- Wilfully abets by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
- In legal cases, proving abetment often requires showing a clear connection between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s suicide, typically through direct or strong encouragement.
- Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS) prescribes the punishment for abetting suicide which can be up to 10 years along with imprisonment and fine as well.
- Abetment of suicide is a crime that can be tried in a Sessions court and is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable crime.
- Cognizable offense: A police officer, on his discretion, can arrest a person without a warrant from a court.
- Non-bailable offense: Granting bail lies within the discretion of the court and not as a matter of right.
- Non-compoundable offence: It cannot be withdrawn by the complainant, even if the complainant and the accused have reached an amicable settlement.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Abetment of Suicide
The Supreme Court of India has provided clarity on what constitutes abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), emphasizing the need for direct and intentional incitement to suicide. This follows a reevaluation of an Allahabad High Court decision from 2017, which was found lacking sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of abetment. Here’s a detailed look at the principles and precedents set by various court rulings on this matter:
Key Points from the Supreme Court Ruling:
- Direct Incitement Required: The Supreme Court highlighted that abetment involves direct and alarming encouragement or incitement by the accused, distinct from mere emotional conflicts or harassment.
- Categories of Relationships:
- Personal Relationships: Issues like emotional disputes within family ties can lead to psychological distress but do not necessarily constitute abetment unless there’s significant harassment.
- Professional Relationships: In the workplace, only extreme levels of harassment that leave an individual feeling trapped and without recourse meet the criteria for abetment.
- Intentionality: Conviction under Section 306 of the IPC requires clear evidence that the accused intended to provoke the suicide, with a deliberate act that leaves the deceased feeling there are no alternatives.
Precedent Cases:
- M Mohan v The State (2011): Established a high standard for proving abetment, requiring specific intent and direct actions that compel the deceased to consider suicide as the only solution.
- Karnataka High Court Ruling (July 2023): Addressed a case involving workplace harassment where the court decided not to quash proceedings against the accused, acknowledging that actions and behaviors contributing to the deteriorating mental health of a sensitive individual could constitute abetment.
- Ude Singh v State of Haryana (2019): Reaffirmed that abetment relies heavily on the individual facts of each case, with a need for evidence of direct or indirect incitement.
Legal Framework and Societal Impact:
These judgments reflect the crucial role of deciding individual and professional dynamics in such abetment cases. The Supreme Court demands direct and intentional incitement to hold a person accountable because it requires serious proofs that the law will not be abused by frivolous charges.
What it reflects is a broader judicial consciousness of the intricacies involved in mental health issues and social contact implications on mental well-being. It also lays much responsibility on the heads of those in authority or position to conduct themselves such that they do not harm others’ mental well-being.
All these developments in judicial thought help even more to clarify the framework in which allegations of abetment to suicide are to be judged and interpreted with concern for the administration of justice in relation to the protection of rights and well-being.
-Source: Indian Express
