Abetment to Suicide and Its Legal Framework in India

• Maghavatpriya HG, a Student at SASTRA Deemed to be University

Abstract

Suicide is one of the most sensitive issues in a society, ethics, and law. It has not just been treated as a personal tragedy but as an area very much requiring legislative intervention to take care of the vulnerable individuals under the Indian criminal law. Particularly, abetment of suicide, is a very serious offence under the then Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the current Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and shows the need of such acts being punished and dealt with in the legal framework as these acts entice an individual towards taking away his own life. The present article examines the legal framework of abetment of suicide in India focusing on its definition, essentials, burden of proof and the judicial interpretations that shape its application. The article also goes into the determination of burden of proof issues for these kinds of cases and discusses the exemptions under law.

Suicide and Its Position in Criminal Law

The act of suicide has a deep impact on the society, and brings moral and legal implications. There is no clear definition for ‘suicide’ in the Indian penal laws. In the case of M.Mohan v. State (2011), the Supreme Court stated that the term ‘suicide’ stands for self-killing. It was described as an act of self-homicide or ending one’s own life, meaning that a person who commits suicide must do it independently, no matter the means he employs to achieve his aim of self-destruction. Initially, many of the legal systems, including that of India, considered suicide a crime and penalised it. Section 309 of the IPC, which made attempted suicides a criminal offence, faced many criticisms for penalising individuals driven to the extent of taking away their life.

The biggest shift came with the passing of the Mental Health Care Act of 2017 when attempted suicide was decriminalized. The mental problems of a person were defined as the base cause of such actions. Although an act of attempted suicide would not invite a penal sanction, abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC remains a grave offence that emphasizes that society holds individuals responsible for driving others towards self-harm.

Attempt to suicide remains decriminalized in the BNS and abetment to suicide still constitutes a cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence under the BNS, 2023.

Meaning and Essentials of Abetment to Suicide

Abetment as defined by BNS means any act which encourages, instigates, or aids another person to commit an offence punishable by law amounts to abetment of that offence. The act which solicits, incites, or assists another in committing suicide is called abetting murder in the person of him who commits the suicide.

Section 106 of the BNS, 2023 states that anyone who aids in the suicide of another is guilty of abetting that person to commit suicide; hence, the abettor will face imprisonment up to ten years and a fine.

The essentials of abetment to suicide:

1. Mens Rea: The abettor should have an intention to encourage or help the person in taking his or her life. In the case of Pramod Shriram Telgote v. State of Maharashtra (2018), the Bombay High Court ruled that proof of intent to commit the crime must be proven in order to secure a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC. It also needs to be a direct or affirmative act that leaves no option to the deceased other than to commit suicide, and that act is to be intended on having brought the deceased into a position where he could take his own life. The most important aspect of Section 306 of the IPC is the requirement for mens rea to commit the offense.
2. Act or Omission: The person abetting must perform an act or omission that encourages or aids the person to commit suicide.
3. Causation: The abettor’s conduct or omission must be the direct cause of the suicide.

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Raval Deepakkkumar Shankerchand (2022), the Gujarat High Court defined the criteria of abetting suicide. The key components were:

1. Abetment, and
2. The intention of the accused to assist, encourage, or support the person in taking their own life.

Judicial Decisions on Abetment to Suicide

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

The constitutionality of section 306 was contested in this case and the Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of section 306, asserting that abetment of suicide is a separate offence from Section 309, which deals with attempted suicide.. The Court noted that an attempt to take one’s own life falls outside the scope of section 306 and is only punishable under section 309. The rule in Section 306 outlines the punishment for both abetting suicide and for aiding in the attempt to commit suicide. Therefore, even if the punishment for attempting suicide is seen as undesirable, encouraging such attempt is classified as a criminal offense. In other words, assisted suicide and attempts to assist in suicide are subject to punishment for compelling reasons that serve the interests of society. Such a regulation is viewed as beneficial to mitigate the risk involved in the lack of such a punitive measure. 

Praveen Pradhan v. State Of Uttaranchal & Anr (2012)

The Supreme Court observed that, instigation must be inferred from the details of a specific situation and there is no rigid formula that can be established to determine if, in a specific instance, there has been incitement that compels an individual to take their own life. In this instance, it was claimed that the accused was forcing the deceased to participate in various inappropriate activities at work, and when the deceased declined those requests, the accused began consistently tormenting and humiliating the deceased. The court determined that there was continuous harassment and degradation; therefore, it rejected the appeal and mandated a trial.

Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2024)

The court stated that abetment to suicide occurs only when the accused acted with the intention of provoking the suicide of the individual involved.

Daxaben v. State Of Gujarat (2022)

The Supreme Court ruled that the abetment of suicide is a serious, severe, and non-compoundable crime that cannot be settled simply through a compromise of the person concerned. 

B Sridevi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court determined that evidence of incitement and abetment is necessary, and that simply alleging workplace pressure or harassment will not suffice to invoke provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

Satvir Singh And Ors v. State Of Punjab And Anr (2001)

The Supreme Court asserted that Section 306 renders an individual who aids in suicide of another liable for punishment, contingent upon the prerequisite that the suicide must have actually occurred.

Shiv Prasad Pandey v. State of U.P (2002)

The court stated that the act of attempting or assisting in an offence is established only when the offence that was aided is carried out as a result. Therefore, when suicide is encouraged and subsequently carried out due to that encouragement, the person who abetted is held responsible under Section 306. 

Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan (2021)

The facts of the case involved a student in the 9th grade taking his own life, leaving a note claiming that his physical training instructor had harassed and humiliated him publicly. The court highlighted two key elements necessary for a conviction under Sec. 306. To begin with, there must be either a direct or an indirect act of encouragement. A simple claim of harassment against the deceased by someone else would not be adequate. Secondly, it is essential to ensure reasonableness. If the deceased was overly sensitive and the charges against the accused do not provide enough reason for someone in similar situations to take their own life, it would be unjust to find the accused guilty of aiding in the suicide. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the FIR due to the absence of any specific accusation and evidence on file, as the necessary elements to establish the claim under Section 306 were not met.

Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr (2010)

In this case, the suicide note stated that the accused was the only reason the deceased ended their life. The deceased worked as a driver and had heart surgery, prompting his doctor to recommend that he avoid stressful responsibilities. Not obeying the commands of a superior officer, the accused reprimanded the deceased and questioned how the deceased could still have the desire to live after being insulted in such a manner. The driver then took his own life. The Supreme Court noted that the deceased was experiencing depression and that the accused did not intend for him to take his own life.

Burden of Proof

The crime of abetment is to be proved either by instigation, or by conspiracy, or by intentional assistance. The act of the accused should directly connect with the decision of the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution is expected to prove his case before the court mainly on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it becomes necessary to collect compelling evidence in the form of indirect or circumstantial evidence.

In the case Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and Ors (1989), the Supreme Court laid down the burden upon the prosecution to demonstrate with sufficient evidence that the abetment exists. Abetment must not be deduced by mere allegations or assumptions, but to be proved through the evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish that the accused had caused provocation or helped the deceased. Circumstantial evidence should rule out every other possibility and point directly towards the guilt of the accused.

Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872, presumes a married woman’s suicide to have been instigated by her husband or relative of his if it is proved that she committed suicide within seven years of marriage and such cruelty was ever meted out to her by her husband or relatives of her husband. “Cruelty” is defined with the same meaning as contained in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All elements of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, must be established for a conviction under Section 113A.

The Supreme Court in the case of Gumansinh v. State of Gujarat (2021), held that applicability of Section 113A of the Evidence Act may be extended with regard to conviction of the accused even if there is no direct evidence in the case.

Exceptions to Abetment of Suicide

Some general exceptions:

• Lack of Mens Rea: Abetment requires that one has to possess the intention to incite suicide and encourage it. Depending on whether there had been intent or not as in accidental causation of harm, there can be no liability.
• Mental Illness: There can be a possibility that an accused person was of unsound mind, therefore its culpability may be reduced if the accused is taken to have been mentally ill.
• Passive Euthanasia: According to the Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. UOI (2011) judgement, passive euthanasia when guided by a doctor is lawful and is not an act of abetting suicide.
• Juveniles: When the minors allegedly involved in abetment, they are tried on the basis of age and mental progress of the under-aged people.

The judicial decisions regarding exceptions to abatement of suicide:

A.K. Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2005)

The Gujarat High Court held that if an employee takes their own life as a result of an abnormal response triggered by the actions of the complainant or a senior officer, such as pursuing departmental measures through legal means or law enforcement, it cannot be classified as aiding or inciting suicide in these situations. 

Reena v. NCT of Delhi (2020)

The Delhi High Court determined that a person cannot be deemed guilty of abetting suicide if the victim was perceived as having a weak character and not capable of coping with life’s challenges.

Velladurai v. State (2021)

The accused and his spouse ingested pesticide together following a dispute between them. The accused lived while his spouse passed away. The Supreme Court decided that the accused cannot be found guilty under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 because this case did not possess the essential elements specified in the Section. 

Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal charges against the accused under Section 306 due to the absence of any evidence of abetment as defined by Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code and the lack of any active action by the accused as no intentional activity to provoke or assist in the suicide was done.

Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police (2022)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that to punish an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be evident mens rea along with a direct act of instigation or abetment that caused the deceased to take their own life.

Conclusion

Abetment to suicide is such a crime that does not pertain much apart from civil and moral duties, being very serious if one thinks in general the suicidal act is a very self-destructive deed, which means preventing people from opening up to external socially destructive actions against themselves. Even the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita include laws pronouncing punishment most strictly to abettors of such acts. Judicial precedents emphasize the degree of intent, causation, and circumstances in the proving of an accused guilty. Such laws are Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which gives presumptive protections although in cases of vulnerable persons such as married women, yet provide for due process through rebuttable presumptions. Exceptions like lack of mens rea and passive euthanasia are proofs of the reality that culpability cannot be defined too simply. It is important to ensure that punitive measures would prevail while keeping in account the aspect of fairness for the litigant parties.

FAQs

1. What is the sentence for abetting a suicide?

The sentence includes up to ten years in prison and a fine under the BNS, 2023.

2. What role does mens rea play in assisting suicide cases?

Mens rea, or intent, is pivotal; the accused must have intended to incite or urge the dead to commit suicide.

3. Is attempting suicide a crime in India?

No, attempted suicide is no longer illegal under the Mental Health Care Act of 2017, however aiding and abetting suicide is still a punishable offence.

4. Are there any exceptions to assisting a suicide?

Yes, there are exceptions, such as a lack of intent (mens rea), passive euthanasia, and situations in which no affirmative act of abetment is demonstrated.

Sources

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/abetment-to-suicide-due-to-pressure-at-workplace/
4. https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-306-abetment-of-suicide/#Ingredients_of_abetment_of_suicide
5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-306-ipc-case-laws/#Smt_Gian_Kaur_v_The_State_of_Punjab_1996
6. https://legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4864-abetment-to-suicide-an-offence-under-section-306-of-indian-penal-code-ipc-1860.html#google_vignette
7. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/humanizationdecriminalization/4.php?Title=Humanization%20and%20Decriminalization%20of%20attempt%20to%20Suicide&STitle=Section%20306:%20Abetment%20of%20Suicidehttps://blog.ipleaders.in/section-306-abetment-of-suicide/#Exceptions_to_abetment_of_suicide
8. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/abetment-to-Suicide