Source: Allahabad High Court  

Why in News? 

The Allahabad High Court heard the anticipatory bail plea by the accused’s uncle in a case related to the alleged abetment of the Bangalore techie suicide case. Counsel raised doubts about the authenticity of the suicide note and questioned the police for acting with undue haste. The complainant accused Sushil of harassing Atul for extorting money, as alleged in a suicide video. 

• The court granted transit anticipatory bail to Sushil until 2nd January 2025, allowing him protection until Karnataka courts reopen.  

What was the Background of Atul Subhash Suicide Case? 

• Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old technology professional from Bangalore, died by suicide amid an ongoing matrimonial dispute with his wife, Nikita Singhania. 
• The parties were engaged in severe marital discord, resulting in pending legal proceedings before the Family Court in Jaunpur District, on divorce, alimony, and custody of the minor child. 
• Before his demise, Subhash meticulously compiled substantial evidence to support his allegations of harassment.  
  • This included a detailed 24-page suicide note, an 81-minute video recording elaborating on his experiences, and a placard inscribed with the phrase "justice is due" 
• In his suicide note and video, Subhash explicitly accused his wife Nikita Singhania and her family members of systematically subjecting him to psychological and legal harassment.  
• He alleged that the continuous matrimonial litigation, multiple legal cases, and familial pressure had created an unbearable environment that ultimately led to his decision to end his life. 
• Following Atul Subhash's death, his brother Bikas Kumar took immediate legal action by filing a First Information Report (FIR) in Bengaluru. 
• The FIR was specifically lodged against Nikita Singhania and three of her family members, charging them with abetment of suicide based on the detailed allegations presented in Subhash's suicide note and video testimony. 
• The FIR being filed on December 9th, a petition submitted on December 12th, and the arrests of the family members occurring on December 13th-14th. 
• The FIR triggered swift legal action, resulting in the arrest of three family members: 
  • Nikita Singhania (wife),  
  • Nisha Singhania (mother-in-law), and  
  • Anurag Singhania (brother-in-law) 
• The matter was further complicated by issues concerning the custody of the minor child.  
• The suicide note, coupled with subsequent legal proceedings, raised pertinent questions regarding the child’s current custodial arrangements and the possible role of Sushil Singhania (the paternal uncle) in assuming custody. 
• The case presented an intricate jurisdictional scenario, involving legal proceedings and investigations across multiple locations, including Bangalore (where the FIR was filed), Jaunpur (where family court proceedings were ongoing), and Prayagraj (where subsequent legal arguments were heard in the High Court). 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court initiated an administrative procedure by summoning case records, indicating a systematic approach to verifying the substantive claims and cross-referencing the allegations mentioned in the suicide note with existing legal documentation. 
• A bench led by Justice Saurabh Srivastava heard submissions who raised significant concerns regarding the authenticity of the suicide note allegedly left by Subhash.  
  • It was contended that, "If the veracity of this suicide note is accepted, it is uncertain who may ultimately be implicated in the matter." 

Abetment to Suicide in Indian Criminal Law 

Definition of Abetment 

• Abetment literally means to encourage, support, or countenance wrongdoing.  
• Under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 the abetment can occur through: 
  • Instigating a person to do an act 
  • Engaging in a conspiracy to do something 
  • Intentionally aiding by act or illegal omission 

Proving Abetment of Suicide (Section 108 of BNS, 2023) 

Key Requirements 

To establish abetment of suicide, prosecution must prove: 

• The deceased actually committed suicide 
• The accused directly instigated or created circumstances leading to suicide 
• Presence of mens rea (criminal intent) 

Crucial Legal Principles 

• In the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,2001 the court established that creating circumstances that leave no option, but suicide can be considered instigation 
• The prosecution must demonstrate:  
  • Continuous irritation or annoyance towards the deceased 
  • Wilful silence or actions that push the victim towards suicide 
  • Criminal intent to provoke suicide 

Criteria for Abetment of Suicide 

How Suicide Notes are an Evidence? 

Legal Significance 

• Can be considered a dying declaration under Section 26 of The Bharatiya Sakshya  Adhiniyam, 2023 
• Differs from English law by allowing broader interpretation of statements related to death 

Admissibility Conditions 

• Must relate directly to the circumstances of death 
• The deceased must be in a sound mental condition 
• The note should be free from inconsistencies 

Important Case References 

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,(1985) 
  • A suicide note can be sole evidence for conviction 
  • Applies similar rules as other dying declarations 
• Laxmi v. Om Prakash & Ors. (2001):  
  • Court must assess the mental capacity of the declarant 
  • Corroborating evidence may be required if mental state is questionable 

Evidentiary Challenges 

• Prosecution must provide direct and indirect evidence 
• Mere presence of a suicide note is not automatically sufficient 
• The court looks for:  
  • Credibility of the statement 
  • Consistency of the narrative 
  • Corroborative evidence