In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court has specified that mere harassment does not constitute sufficient grounds for convicting an individual of abetting suicide. The clarification came in a recent judgement by Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale as they adjudicated an appeal against a Gujarat High Court decision, which had previously denied the discharge of a woman’s husband and his parents from allegations of harassment leading to her suicide.
The matter, initially registered in 2021, involved accusations against the husband and his parents under Sections 498-A (cruelty to a married woman) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. The latter specifies a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a fine for those found guilty of encouraging suicide.
In their December 10 judgement, the Justices underscored the importance of establishing clear mens rea, or the intention to abet, for a conviction under Section 306 to hold. “Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide,” the bench stated. They highlighted that the prosecution must prove an active or direct action by the accused that led to the victim taking their own life.
The bench dismissed the Section 306 charge against the three accused, maintaining that there was no conclusive evidence of a direct or positive act by them that instigated the suicide. They emphasized that the intent and act of incitement must be evident and explicitly discernible, which was not the case here.
However, the court upheld the charge under Section 498-A, citing that an FIR lodged by the woman’s father chronicled years of alleged physical and mental harassment, including distress over the couple’s inability to have children. The woman, married in 2009, was reportedly found deceased in April 2021, having hung herself.
The apex court’s decision reinforces the necessity for a meticulous examination of the facts and evidence in cases alleging abetment of suicide. “In cases of death of a wife, the court must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented,” the bench remarked. They stressed the need for concrete proof of acts of incitement, direct or indirect, that led to the suicide.
