Calling a woman "call-girl" will not attract offence of abetment of suicide

-

Calling a woman "call-girl" will not attract offence of abetment of suicide

-TANISHA SHARMA

BACKGROUND


Section 306 under Indian Penal Code, 1860- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Hence, Section 306 of Indian Penal Code deals penalizes ‘abetment of suicide’ while section 309 deals with ‘attempt to commit suicide’.

Abetment generally means to instigate a person to do or abstain from doing an act in a certain way. Mens rea or guilty mind is an important element as it is considered as a pre-condition for a liability to be held in an offence of abetment. An abettor is a person who abets an offense. The word suicide is nowhere mentioned in the IPC, however, it’s a well-known word itself. ‘Sui’ means self and ‘cide’ means killing, thus insinuating an act of self-killing.

           For a conviction to be held under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove certain essentials-

  • The deceased committed suicide
  • The accused abetted or instigated the victim for committing suicide
  • Mens rea or the guilty mind of the accused

CURRENT ISSUE


The Supreme Court on 18th October 2019, Friday upheld Calcutta High Court order discharging the accused of abetting suicide of a girl. The facts of the case are that the woman and the accuse fell in love and took the decision of getting married. On March 5, 2004, the woman visited Kundu’s(Respondent no. 1) place where his parents(Respondent no. 2) refused to give their consent for marriage, yelled at her and addressed her as a ‘call girl’. Kundu failed to take a stand for her. The woman very next day committed suicide and left two notes in which she blamed Kundu and her parents for the abetment of suicide.



 The application filed in the trial court was discharged but later on, the Calcutta High Court allowed the petition filed by the accused. The apex court agreed with the HC. The bench comprehending Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice R. Subhash Reddy observed that the case did not present any picture of abetment allegedly committed by the respondents. There was no goading or insinuation or solicitation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide. Justice Reddy also cited the ruling of apex court’s earlier case that is of  Swamy Prahaladdas vs State of MP(1995), where it was held that pronouncements like ‘go and die’ from a husband to his wife during a disputation cannot be held as a direct cause for committing suicide. In that case, the husband had been acquitted of the charge of abetment of suicide.


The Supreme Court added that to draw speculation of instigation it all depends on the facts and the circumstances of the case, whether the acts committed by the accused will account for direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide, is a matter which is required to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. It quoted the following observations made in the judgment

"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelled out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

CONCLUSION


Protecting the sanctitude of life has been a sine qua non(mandatory) intention in the minds of Indian legislators while drafting any law. The level of esteem shown towards human life is best explained by the fact that it not only prohibits a person from taking another person’s life but also penalizes a person who tries to put an end to his life as well. The criminal justice system is generally based equally on the presumption of jurisdiction and innocence of vigorous suspicion upon which investigation and prosecution rests. Justices gave a right to find the balance between guilt beyond reasonable doubt and self-victimage of a suicide.

                          According to major rulings in previous cases, it was held that a suicide note alone cannot act as proof enough to charge someone with abetting a suicide. A study on case laws on abetment also reveals there must be proof that the accused goaded or encouraged the victim to end his/her life. Besides these, the accused must have possessed the intention or knowledge that his acts will lead the victim to commit suicide.

Comments

Post a Comment