2024 Supreme(SC) 870

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Nipun Aneja and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No 654 of 2017
Decided On : 03-10-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Abetment of suicide – Ingredients to constitute offence under Section 306 of IPC would stand fulfilled if suicide is committed by deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by accused leaving no option but to commit suicide.
(2) Courts should know how to apply correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to facts on record – It is inability on part of courts to understand and apply correct principles of law to cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 read with Section 107 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 108 read with Section 45] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Abetment of suicide – Rejection of quashing application by High Court – Deceased allegedly committed suicide on account of instigation in form of harassment and humiliation at end of appellants – It is not the case that only deceased was targeted and humiliated – Ingredients to constitute offence under Section 306 of IPC would stand fulfilled if suicide is committed by deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by accused leaving no option but to commit suicide – No case worth name against appellants is made out – Putting appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted commission of suicide by deceased will be nothing but abuse of process of law – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 4, 7, 11, 21, 25 and 26)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 read with Section 107 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 108 read with Section 45] – Abetment of suicide – Test that Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make endeavour to ascertain on the basis of materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that accused intended consequences of the act (Suicide) – Over a period of time, trend of courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial – Courts just look into factum of suicide and nothing more – Such understanding on part of courts is wrong – It all depends on nature of offence and accusation – Such understanding on part of courts is wrong – It all depends on nature of offence and accusation – Courts should know how to apply correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to facts on record – It is inability on part of courts to understand and apply correct principles of law to cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions – It is ultimately for Police and courts of law to look into the matter and see that persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for sake of prosecuting them. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is at instance of three accused sought to be prosecuted in connection with Criminal Case No 11428 of 2007 for offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and is directed against the order passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 10 March 2017 by which High Court rejected the application filed by appellants herein seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.

Findings of Court:

High Court should have examined the matter keeping in mind the following:

(a) On the date of meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did the appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading deceased to see suicide as the only escape? To ascertain this, two statements of the colleagues of the deceased were sufficient.

(b) Are appellants accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of deceased by making him feel worthless or underserving of life leading him to commit suicide?

(c) 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?

(d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due to public humiliation & loss of dignity.

Result : Appeal allowed.