The Supreme Court has emphasized that mere harassment alone cannot establish guilt in cases of abetment to suicide, stating that there must be unequivocal evidence of direct or indirect instigation.
This significant ruling came from a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and P. B. Varale while adjudicating an appeal contesting a Gujarat High Court decision. The case involved the court’s refusal to discharge a woman’s spouse and in-laws who were accused of harassment leading to her suicide.
The ruling’s relevance has been highlighted by the recent suicide of 34-year-old IT professional Atul Subhash, who claimed harassment by his estranged wife and her relatives. Subsequently, an abetment case was filed against his wife Nikita Singhania, her parents Nisha and Anurag, and her uncle Sushil. The court’s observations could potentially benefit Nisha and her family members.
In examining the challenge to the high court’s ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the case, registered in 2021, involved charges under Section 498-A (marital cruelty) and Section 306 of the IPC, with the latter addressing suicide abetment and carrying a maximum punishment of 10 years imprisonment plus fine.
“A conviction under Section 306 of the IPC requires the clear presence of mens rea – the intent to abet the act – as per well-established legal doctrine. Simply proving harassment is insufficient to determine guilt in abetting suicide,” the bench stated in its December 10 verdict. The court emphasized that prosecutors must prove active or direct involvement by the accused that prompted the victim’s suicide. The bench clarified that mens rea cannot be assumed or deduced but must be demonstrable.
“The fundamental requirement for establishing abetment under the law remains unfulfilled without this element, highlighting the necessity for clear and deliberate intent to encourage or contribute to the suicidal act,” the court explained. While maintaining charges under Section 498-A, the bench cleared three defendants of Section 306 charges. The court noted that the woman’s father had filed an FIR against her husband and two in-laws under various charges including Sections 306 and 498-A.
The bench observed that the woman’s 2009 marriage remained childless for five years, allegedly leading to physical and mental torment. In April 2021, her father learned of her death by suicide. The high court had previously upheld the sessions court’s decision to frame charges under both sections against the accused.
The Supreme Court elaborated that Section 306 of the IPC sanctions those who abet suicide. “Prosecution must demonstrate that the accused contributed to the deceased’s suicidal act for charges under this section,” it explained. The bench emphasized that securing a conviction under Section 306 requires establishing clear mens rea to provoke or compel the deceased toward suicide.
“In wife death cases, courts must carefully examine facts, circumstances, and evidence. It’s crucial to establish whether the victim was subjected to such severe cruelty or harassment that suicide became their only perceived escape,” the court stated. The Supreme Court emphasized that abetment cases require substantial evidence of direct or indirect incitement leading to suicide. “Harassment allegations alone are insufficient for conviction. Evidence must show positive actions by the accused, temporally connected to the incident, that compelled the victim’s suicide,” it declared.
The Supreme Court noted that in this case, neither the required mens rea nor any direct or indirect acts instigating suicide were prima facie evident. The bench acknowledged the suicide occurred after 12 years of marriage. “The appellants’ contention that no complaints were filed during twelve years of marriage is untenable. The absence of formal complaints doesn’t guarantee freedom from cruelty or harassment,” it observed.
The bench partially allowed the appeal, discharging the appellants under Section 306 while maintaining Section 498-A charges, directing the trial to proceed under the latter provision.