Keywords- section 306 ipc , abetment of suicide, means rea
The Indian Supreme Court interpreted Section 306 IPC regarding abetment to suicide. The court scrutinized the timeline of events and emphasized the need for a direct, proximate link between alleged instigation and the act of suicide. The justices’ elaboration on the intensity and proximity of instigation provides clarity on the application of the law. Overall, the article offers a comprehensive understanding of the court’s reasoning and decision .
In this judgment, apex court interpreted the section 306 ipc which says 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.
Facts of the case
The widow of the deceased, Ashok Kumar,third respondent borrowed Rs.40,000 from Sandeep Bansal (also known as Sandeep Lala). The first appellant is Sandeep Bansal’s son. Later, she borrowed an additional Rs.60,000 from Sandeep, who, while taking the amount, deducted Rs.15,000 as interest, as mentioned in her police complaint.
On 15th June 2017, the first appellant came to the shop of the third respondent, where her husband was sitting. The first appellant demanded money.It is alleged that the first appellant abused and assaulted the deceased with a belt.
Further, The third respondent claims that Sandeep took 10 to 12 cheques from her, and when one cheque bounced, Sandeep issued a
legal notice dated June 27, 2017, to the deceased. She asserts that her husband became tense due to these incidents and was greatly upset. She alleges that the deceased took his life as a result of the appellant’s threats, leading to this extreme action.
The High court of Uttarakhand ruled in favor of the third respondent. Following the ruling made by The State of Uttarakhand, the appellant contested the judgment in apex court.
Apex court stand
The court held that the incident involving the first appellant threatening and assaulting the third respondent and her husband occurred on June 15, 2017. Subsequently, Sandeep issued a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on June 27, 2017. The suicide note was written on June 30, 2017, followed by the deceased’s Suicide three days later. There is no allegation in the complaint or suicide note that the appellants or Sandeep interacted with the third respondent or her deceased husband after June 15, 2017. This context is relevant in relation to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).and also In the facts of the case, Section 107, will have no application.
Further apex court elaborated that the act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.Thus ,The appeal was, accordingly, allowed.
Justice Abhay S. Oka and justice Pankaj Mithal presided over this case. Case no. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3578 OF 2023
Reference – official website of Supreme Court
Written by Samruddhi Kulkarni from ILS Law College pune (BA.LL.B) semester 1
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments