The Supreme Court held that in order to invoke Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment of suicide, the accused must encourage the person to end his own life. (Ministry of Public Transport)
The couple married in 2015 against the wishes of both family members after a romantic relationship. They had a boy and bought a house together in their own names
The Supreme Court held that to invoke Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment of suicide, the accused must have encouraged the person to take his own life, or conspired with others to encourage the person to do so, or knowingly acted or failed to act to help The person commits a crime.
Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma explained the legal position while allowing Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde's appeal against the Bombay High Court order rejecting her plea against the trial court order refusing to release her in a suicide-related case. Husband Sudarshan Gangurde.
The deceased, 38 years old, worked as a social services manager in a hospital and committed suicide by hanging himself at his home in Shingnapur on February 17, 2020. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by his mother alleging that the accused mentally and physically harassed and assaulted him.
The couple married in 2015 against the wishes of both family members after a romance. They had a boy and purchased a house together in their own names.
The police filed a chargesheet alleging that the accused harassed the deceased for money and transferred the house in her name, forcing the deceased to end her life.
The appellant argued that the charges against her were false and frivolous because there was no evidence that she played an active role in abetting the crime. Moreover, she claimed that the house was purchased jointly by the couple, so there was no issue of insisting that the house be transferred to her name.
Her lawyer also pointed out that neither the deceased nor her family complained about the alleged harassment to the authorities before committing suicide.
However, the state counsel argued that the necessary elements of the offense under Section 306 of the ICC were clearly emerged from the evidence collected during the investigation and therefore the High Court rightly dismissed the petition.
After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the court and the legal position established through statutory and judicial decisions, the judge said: “We are of the view that there is no direct link between the deceased's marital dispute and the appellant's suicide.”
The court held that the prosecution failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the charges against the appellant.
“The appellant did not play any active role or take any active or direct action in instigating or assisting the deceased to commit suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor the statements of the deceased’s colleagues recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation indicate that the complainant had any form of instigation and abetment to commit suicide. There is no allegation that the appellant advised the deceased to commit suicide at any time before her husband's suicide.
The court also observed that the essential point of Section 107 read with Section 306 of IPC did not exist in the present case. The judge therefore dismissed the High Court order and allowed the appellant’s application for release.
The court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in SS Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010), which explained the concept of abetment and the necessary ingredients.
It also cited Amalendu Pal v. State of WB (2010), where the court interpreted the parameters of Section 306. meaning.
The bench noted that in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2020), this Court reiterated and summarized all the principles and essential elements of Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
