S.306 IPC | Suicide Note Alone Insufficient For Conviction Unless Its Proved There Was Incitement By Accused Proximate To Death : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 5) set aside the conviction of a man accused of committing an offence of abetment of suicide by blackmailing the deceased using compromising photographs and videos.The Court observed that for invoking the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution must prove instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid with a clear mens rea to abet suicide. Mere harassment or differences are not sufficient unless there is a proximate act leading to suicide, the court said."Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence," the Court observed.Further, on whether the suicide note could form the sole basis for conviction, the Court answered that a suicide note alone is not sufficient to establish abetment unless it is corroborated by other evidence. The Court said that the authenticity of a suicide note must be proved, and the handwriting expert should be examined in court. “Finally, even if we take the suicide note as correct and genuine, we do not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellants proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants.”, the court observed. The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the appeal filed by the Appellant who was convicted under Section 306 IPC for abetting the suicide of the deceased for allegedly blackmailing the deceased using his compromised photographs and videos with a female colleague. As per the prosecution's case, the deceased left a suicide note specifying the name of the appellant responsible for his suicide. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision upholding his conviction, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the essential ingredients to book a person for abetment to suicide was missing in this case as there was no direct evidence of abetment, such as instigation or incitement, to prove their guilt under Section 306 IPC. The appellants argued that there was no proximate act on their part that directly led to the suicide. The alleged blackmailing was not supported by concrete evidence. Further, he argued that the handwriting expert who examined the note was not examined in court, and the appellants did not admit to the genuineness of the report. Finding force in the Appellant's arguments, the judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan emphasized that to convict under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused instigated or aided the deceased to commit suicide, with a clear mens rea (intention) to abet the suicide. Citing precedents such as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, the Court observed that instigation must involve goading, urging, or provoking the deceased to commit suicide, and mere harassment or differences are not sufficient to establish abetment unless there is a proximate act leading to suicide. “Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.”, the court observed. Since the prosecution was not able to prove the proximate act by the appellants that directly led to the suicide, and the alleged blackmailing was not supported by concrete evidence, the Court noted that the suicide note alone was insufficient to establish abetment. Further, the veracity of the suicide note was deemed doubtful by the Court, stating that the handwriting expert who examined the suicide note was not examined in court. Relying on the case of Keshav Dutt versus State of Haryana (2010) 9 SCC 286, the Court held that expert evidence must be corroborated by direct or circumstantial evidence to be relied upon. “One of the questions which fell for consideration in that case was whether the opinion of a handwriting expert can be admitted in evidence without examination of the handwriting expert. In this connection, this Court took the view that when the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the said expert. In that case, it was found...

S.306 IPC | Suicide Note Alone Insufficient For Conviction Unless Its Proved There Was Incitement By Accused Proximate To Death : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

S.306 IPC | Suicide Note Alone Insufficient For Conviction Unless Its Proved There Was Incitement By Accused Proximate To Death : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers