MENSREA IS VITAL TO ESTABLISH A CHARGE FOR ABETMENT.

"Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide."

Section 306 IPC (108 BNS) envisages abetment to suicide and section 107 stipulates Abetment of a Things. The relevant section are reproduced herein:

“306. Abetment of suicide - 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. 

107. Abetment of a thing—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.— Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.— Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.— A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. 

Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

It is of utmost importance to substantiate the ingredients of abetment in order to sustain a charge under section 306 IPC and it is necessary to prove that the accused person had contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied, To Instigate, To Conspire, and To Intentionally aid such illegal act or omission and the most common ingredient to be established for abetment is the mens rea or the intention.

It is a settled law that each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances and the Court's time and again has opined that each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. The Court while dealing with an abetment to suicide must substantiate that the intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act.  Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. (See Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367).

The Supreme Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another (2010) 12 SCC 190 : 2010 INSC 506 has specifically dealt with the scope and requirements essential for abetment. It opined that

"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

Similarly, the Supreme Court while relying on the aforesaid judgement in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679 : 2024 INSC 960 held that:

“18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.”

To make out a charge of abetment, an intention or mensrea to instigate such act or omission, has to be established not merely alleged. Mensrea  cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. It is a settled law that, to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, the commission of the suicide by the deceased must be in close proximity. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mensrea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. (See Mahendra Awase vs State of Up 2025 INSC INSC 76 and Prakash and Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors 2024 INSC 1020).

WHAT IS THE REMEDY WHEN ONE HAS BEEN FALSLY IMPLICATED FOR ABETMENT OF SUICIDE.

When an FIR is lodged against a person who has been falsely implicated for abetment. The rightful legal recourse is to file a quashing petition invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 CrPC or (528 BNSS). The Courts in multiple occasions have quashed FIR's which has been falsely fabricated and when the ground of abetment has been failed to established. The landmark ruling of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335],  the Supreme Court has explicitly laid down the grounds for quashing of an FIR and one of the grounds it has opined is that when the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value are accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner. The court can exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

With respect to abetment of suicide, An FIR based merely on the basis of a suicide note where the contents do not indicate any act or omission of abetment or the utterance of the name do not attribute to abetment was quashed. (See Prabhat Kumar Mishra vs. The State of UP 2024 INSC 172 & Ayyub & Ors vs State of UP 2025 INSC 168).

It is also relevant to note an important dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahendra Awase vs State of Up 2025 INSC INSC 76  wherein it had held that the Police while lodging an FIR with respect to abetment of suicide must not haywirely, without establishing the basic ingredients thereto, proceed to lodge an FIR and must be practical about the cause of death and whether or not there was an instigation to abatement. It held that:

"Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306."

Thus, what springs from the abovenoted precedents is that the intention plays a vital ingredient to establish a charge for abetment and merely allegations of abetment cannot be deemed conclusive proof to lodge an FIR and is therefore liable to be quashed under law.

Greetings, I am a young legal professional and a proud Gorkha who’s eager as a morning bird, loves poetry and drama, listens to the Floyd and the Beatles, admires the court craft and is passionate about the little things that adds immense value.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE PRACTICE OF EXHIBITION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER THE INDIAN LAW.

Exhibition of a document in judicial proceedings is a standard customary practice that has been followed for a long period of time. There isn’t any specific provision under the law that governs the  expression ‘ exhibit ’   or ‘marking’ of documents. There are only certain rules laid down in the Delhi High Court (original side) rules with regard to the mandatory marking of the document with exhibit or labeling of every document produced during trial. PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS. Order 13 Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stipulates rules for admission or rejection of documents. The same read as follows: Rule 3   - Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents. ― The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection. Rule 4  -  Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence. ― (1) Subject to the provisions of the next foll...
Read more

WHAT IS 'QUESTION OF LAW' & ' SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW'

The maintainability of an appeal before the high court or the Supreme Court depends on the narrow  determination/validity of issues of laws involved. The courts in appeal should be convinced that a  substantial question of law is involved for its indulgence into the matter and not mere question of  law. The legislation does not describe ‘Question of law’ and ‘Substantial question of Law’ but  judicial precedents overtime has shaped and differentiated its true meaning. A Question of law arises when there is ambiguity and uncertainty in application of a settled legal provision to the facts and circumstances of the case and this question of law becomes substantial when the question of law has not been dealt with or when there are conflicting judicial opinions by  different benches of the High Court or the Supreme Court that requires effective interpretation and  permanent judicial consideration. What is the test for determination on whether a Substantial Quest...
Read more

(ORDER XII RULE 6) JUDGEMENT ON ADMISSION ON THE BASIS OF ORAL ADMISSION MUST BE CLEAR, CATEGORICAL, UNAMBIGUOUS & UNCONDITIONAL.

  Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC stipulates that the court may at any stage of the proceeding can pass a Judgement on the basis of the Admission made by the party in the pleadings or otherwise orally or in writing. Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC reads thus: Judgment on admissions.— (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.  (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced. Order XII Rule 6 is an enabling provision that provides complete discretion to the court to pass a judgement on admission on the basis ...
Read more