Abetment to Suicide

Source: Kerela High Court

Why in News?

• A bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that there was no evidence on record to show that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
  • The Kerela High Court held this in the case of Murali @ Muralidharan v. State of Kerela.

What is the Background of Murali @ Muralidharan v. State of Kerela Case?

• The deceased hanged himself to death on 6^th March 2016 after writing two suicide notes naming petitioners as persons responsible for his death.
• The allegation in the two suicide notes was that petitioners had filed a complaint in the police station against the deceased persons and when he was called upon by the police for investigation, he committed suicide.
• The petitioners filed application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.c).

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court observed that Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for abetment to suicide and the word ‘abetment’ is defined in Section 107 of IPC.
• The offence of abetment will arise only when there is an instigation or goading by the accused to commit suicide.
  • This act of goading must be proximate in time to the act of suicide.
• Filing of complaint before lawful authority cannot be considered as instigation as the intention in filing the compliant is not to instigate or goad the accused to commit suicide.

What is Abetment to Suicide under Section 106 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)?

• Section 106 of BNS provides if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• The provision was in the form of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

What are Landmark Cases on Abetment to Suicide?

• Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal (2005)
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that an offence under Section 306 of IPC will stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of crime.
  • The parameters of abetment are defined under Section 107 of IPC (Section 45 of BNS) and must be construed accordingly.
  • The Court observed that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased.
• Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2024)
  • The Court observed that abetment to suicide arises only when the accused had acted with an intention to bring about suicide of the concerned person.
• Mahendra Singh and Another Gayatribai v. State of M.P (1995)
  • The Supreme Court considered the definition of the word 'abetment' under Section 107 I.P.C. and held that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased would not be sufficient to attract the offence of abetment to commit suicide.