Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court recently clarified the conditions under which the official superiors can be held liable for the abetment of a junior official's suicide. The Court distinguished between two categories of relationships: sentimental ties (e.g., familial or romantic) and official capacities.  

• Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held this in the case of Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh.  
• It emphasized that conflicts in sentimental relationships can lead to psychological distress, potentially resulting in suicide, thus establishing grounds for liability in certain circumstances. 

What was the Background of Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Case? 

• Rajeev Jain was an employee of Hindustan Lever Limited who had worked with the company for 23 years. 
• On 3^rd November 2006, Rajeev Jain committed suicide in his hotel room in Lucknow. 
• The next day, his brother Rajnish Jain filed a First Information Report (FIR) regarding the suicide. 
• According to the FIR, the company had been offering a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), which was allegedly being implemented as a Compulsory Retirement Scheme (CRS). 
• Several company officers were named in the FIR, including Nipun Aneja, Z.I. Alvi, and Manish Sharma, who were accused of pressuring and harassing employees to accept the VRS. 
• On the day of his death, Rajeev Jain had attended a meeting at Hotel Deep Palace in Lucknow with other employees and company officers. 
• During this meeting, Rajeev Jain and other employees who had not opted for VRS were allegedly given letters to work in merchandising, which was considered a lower position than their current roles as salesmen. 
• Two colleagues of the deceased, Sudhir Kumar Ojha and Jayant Kumar Ghatak, provided statements to the police describing the events of the meeting and the alleged harassment. 
• Based on these statements and other evidence, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused officers under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) for abetment of suicide. 
• The accused officers filed a petition to quash the criminal proceedings, which was rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. 
• Following this rejection, the accused officers appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision not to quash the criminal proceedings against them. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court established that for Section 306 of IPC (abetment of suicide), there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. 
• The Court categorized relationships in abetment cases into two types:  
  • Where the deceased had sentimental or physical ties with the accused  
  • Where the deceased had official relations with the accused 
• The Court noted that in official relationships, expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies, and regulations, unlike sentimental relationships which carry more personal expectations. 
• The Court held that the test in such cases should be to ascertain whether there is prima facie evidence that the accused intended the consequences of their act, i.e., suicide. 
• The Court noted several factors that should be examined in abetment cases:  
  • Whether the accused created a situation of unbearable harassment  
  • Whether they exploited emotional vulnerability 
  • Whether they threatened dire consequences  
  • Whether they made false allegations damaging reputation 
• The Court observed that the High Court's approach was incorrect as it failed to properly examine these factors. 
• The Court states that mere harassment or humiliation in an official capacity, without the specific intention to drive someone to suicide, does not constitute abetment. 
• The Court noted that while courts often wait for a full trial to determine intention, in abetment of suicide cases, the nature of allegations often makes things clear from the outset. 
• The Court observed that unnecessary prosecutions often result from courts' inability to correctly apply the principles of law governing abetment of suicide. 
• The Court found that putting the appellants on trial would be an abuse of the process of law, as no case worth the name was made out against them. 
• The Court distinguished between normal workplace conflicts and actions that could be considered abetment, emphasizing that official relationships typically have different standards than personal ones. 

What is Section 108 of BNS,2023? 

About: 

• Section 108 of BNS prescribes punishment for abetment of suicide, which can extend to ten years imprisonment and includes a fine. 
• Previously it was given under Section 306 of IPC. 

Essential Ingredients: 

• The essential ingredients of an offense under Section 108 BNS are:  
  • The fact of suicide 
  • Abetment by the accused 
• To establish abetment under this section, the prosecution must prove:  
  • That the deceased committed suicide. 
  • That the accused had abetted the commission of suicide. 

Requirement for Conviction: 

• For conviction under Section 108, there must be evidence of:  
  • A direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide. 
  • The accused's intention to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 
• Mere harassment or insulting behavior does not constitute abetment unless:  
  • There is evidence suggesting the accused intended to instigate suicide. 
  • The act was proximate to the time of the suicide. 
• The prosecution must establish a clear mens rea (guilty mind) on the part of the accused to commit the offense. 
• The act of the accused must be:  
  • An active or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. 
  • Intended to push the deceased into a position where they saw no option but suicide. 
• The section requires proof of:  
  • The accused's actions  
  • A clear nexus between these actions and the victim's suicide. 
• The court must consider:  
  • The state of mind of the accused. 
  • The nature of their actions. 
  • The proximity of their actions to the suicide. 
• A conviction cannot be sustained without:  
  • A positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid. 
  • Evidence of intentional conduct leading to the suicide. 
• The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish all elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.