Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Nisha Saket v. State Of Madhya Pradesh has held that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts or incitement of commission of suicide.

What was the Background of Nisha Saket v. State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• Before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, a Criminal Revision has been filed against the order passed by Sessions Court, by which charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) has been framed against the applicant.
• The undisputed fact is that applicant is the wife of deceased Preetam Saket, whereas the respondent Smt. Radha Bai is mother-in-law of the applicant.
• It was alleged that the applicant did not maintain a good relationship with her in-laws and failed to adequately care for her husband. There were instances where she did not prepare meals for her husband on time, leading to him sometimes going on duty without eating.
• Setting aside the order of the Sessions Court, the High Court allowed criminal revision.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed that the wife's act of not preparing the food in time, compelling the husband to do household chores and going to the market along with other persons for shopping purposes does not attract the offence of abetment of suicide.
• It was further held that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts or incitement of commission of suicide. Acts involve multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and reactions or in the cases of abetment, Court must look for cogent and convincing proof of acts of incitement of commission of suicide.

What is Section 306 of IPC?

• About:
  • Section 306 of IPC deals with the Abetment of suicide whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS).
  • It states that 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.
  • A bare reading of above provision would demonstrate that for an offence under Section 306 of IPC, there are twin requirements, namely, suicide and abetment to commit suicide.
  • Commission of suicide is not made punishable not because the commission of suicide is not culpable, but for the reason that the person culpably responsible would have departed from this world before he can face any indictment.
  • Whereas abetment of commission of suicide is viewed very seriously by law.
• Case Laws:
  • In the case of Randhir Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab (2004), the Supreme Court held that Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing.
    • A more active role, which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
  • In the case of Amlendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010), the Supreme Court observed that the Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.