The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a crucial judgment, held that merely being named in a suicide note does not establish guilt under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the abetment of suicide. The court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) against the accused, Sunil Chauhan, and others, emphasizing the need for a direct and substantial link between the accused’s actions and the suicide.
Background of the Case
The case involves two petitions, CRM-M-62885-2023 (“Sunil Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Another”) and CRM-M-583-2024 (“Mubin Khan v. State of Haryana & Another”), which stem from the same FIR (No. 357 dated 15.07.2023) registered at Adarsh Nagar Police Station, Faridabad, Haryana. The FIR was filed by Shiv Kumar, whose brother Kehri Singh committed suicide on July 14, 2023.
According to the complainant, Shiv Kumar, the deceased and his brother were involved in construction work at the house of Sunil Chauhan, who allegedly refused to pay the dues amounting to Rs. 4,00,000. Additionally, Chauhan introduced the deceased to Narendra Kumar Sharma, who owed Rs. 6,73,000 to the deceased and had taken a large sum as commission. Another accused, Mubin Khan, reportedly owed Rs. 93,152 for construction work. The complainant claimed that the financial stress and threats from the accused led to the deceased’s suicide.
Legal Issues Involved
The central issue before the court was whether the mere refusal to pay dues and the deceased’s mention of the accused in a suicide note constituted “abetment of suicide” under Section 306 IPC. The accused argued that there was no direct instigation or conspiracy to force the deceased to commit suicide, and mere financial disputes or the deceased’s mention in a suicide note did not amount to abetment under Section 107 IPC, which defines abetment.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, who presided over the case, meticulously analyzed the facts, the legal provisions under Sections 107 and 306 IPC, and relevant precedents. The court observed, “To constitute abetment, there must be a proximate and live link between the actions of the accused and the suicide. The accused’s actions must have directly led the deceased to take his life.”
The court emphasized that there must be a “positive act” on the part of the accused that directly instigates or compels the victim to commit suicide. The judge cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, to underline that mere harassment or non-payment of dues does not constitute abetment unless it meets the criteria defined under Section 107 IPC.
Quoting the Court’s Observations
Justice Bedi noted, “Merely being named in a suicide note does not establish the guilt of an accused under Section 306 IPC unless there is clear evidence of direct involvement in the instigation or conspiracy that leads to the suicide.” He added, “The actions of the accused must be such that a person of ordinary prudence would be left with no option but to take their life. A mere refusal to pay dues or financial disputes, as alleged, do not amount to such instigation.”
Arguments Presented by the Lawyers
– For the Petitioners: Mr. B.S. Tewatia and Mr. Johan Kumar, representing Sunil Chauhan and Mubin Khan respectively, argued that the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed. They contended that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not constitute abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. They relied on precedents where courts had held that mere mention in a suicide note or refusal to pay debts does not amount to abetment.
– For the Respondents: Mr. Karan Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, and Dr. S.K. Bhar, counsel for the complainant, argued that the suicide note and the supplementary statement of the complainant clearly indicated harassment and mental agony caused by the accused, leading to the deceased’s suicide. They cited the judgment in Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A.P. to support their position.
The court concluded that the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC were not met in this case. It ruled that the accused could not be held liable merely because their names were mentioned in the suicide note. Therefore, the FIR (No. 357 dated 15.07.2023) and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.
Case Details
Case Title: Sunil Chauhan v. State of Haryana & Another
Case No.: CRM-M-62885-2023
Bench: Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
