S.S. CHHEENA VS VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN & ANR ON 12 AUGUST, 2010

CITATION	2010 AIR SCW 4938, (2010) 95 ALLINDCAS 96 (SC)
DATE	12 AUGUST 2010
COURT NAME	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PLAINTIFF/ PETITIONER	S.S. CHHEENA
DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT	VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN & ANOTHER
JUDGES	K.S RADHAKRISHNAN, DALVEER BHANDARI

INTRODUCTION – 

The judgement covered here is from the Supreme Court of India, S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another (2010 INSC 506), dealing with a pressing and awful issue of abetment of suicide under the IPC, IPC Section 306. This issue is related to the appellant S. S. Chheena, a former Indian Police Service officer, who was employed as a security officer at Guru Nanak Dev University and challenged the accusation against him regarding the suicide of his nephew Saurav Mahajan.

The S.S. Chheena case concerns the most relevant issues related to the interpretation of suicide in the IPC section 306, the relevance of a suicide note in proving abetment and the threshold of evidence that will necessitate a trial on the provision (sufficient evidence). The main parties in the case are Vijay Kumar Mahajan, the complainant who is representing the father of the deceased, and S. S. Chheena, the appellant.

ISSUES

• Do the actions of the appellant, S.S. Chheena, constitute abetment of suicide as defined by Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
• Was the charge under Section 306 IPC appropriately established against the appellant?
• Was there adequate evidence to substantiate the prosecution’s claim of abetment of suicide against the appellant?
• Did the appellant’s conduct towards the deceased amount to causing the suicide in accordance with Indian criminal law?

FACTS OF THE CASE

As mentioned in this case, the dispute arose between the son of the defendant, namely Saurav Mahajan, who was a final-year student in the law department, and Harminder Singh, a fellow student of the same class. Mainly the dispute was regarding the theft of a mobile phone which came to the notice of the then head of college, M.D. Singh. After that, M.D. Singh asked both students, Saurav and Harminder, alias Montu. Also asked them to submit the incident in written version.

Thereafter the deceased and Harminder gave a written version to the authorities for taking necessary actions. An inquiry was conducted after that by a security officer of that university.

During the inquiry, the son of the complainant committed suicide by jumping in front of the train. During the search a suicide note was recovered from the deceased’s pocket.

In the whole note, Saurav (deceased) said that he didn’t commit the theft, and he had committed suicide because he was falsely accused in the theft case of a mobile which he hadn’t committed. The deceased, in his note, mentioned that Harminder Singh and his accomplices were responsible for this act.

On that basis a FIR was registered under section 306 of IPC at Police Station, Amritsar. Also on the basis of that suicide note, Harminder Singh and M.D. Singh were arrested under Section 306 of the IPC. Also, it is necessary to mention that S.S. CHENNA, the plaintiff, was not even mentioned as an accused. After that, the complainant went to take help from the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, but they also refused to provide any kind of help and denied interfering in the matter.

A report was submitted solely against Harminder Singh under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Following the submission of the challan, charges were formally brought against Harminder Singh, also known as Montu. The complainant, who is the father of the deceased, filed a private complaint in the court of the learnt Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Amritsar. In this complaint, he alleged that the appellant S.S. Chheena and M.D. Singh were complicit in his son’s suicide and requested their prosecution under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, the public prosecutor filed a motion to summon the appellant and M.D. Singh, who was then the head of the Department of Law at Guru Nanak Dev University in Amritsar, under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Amritsar, based on the aforementioned complaint, summoned both the appellant and M.D. Singh to stand trial under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court dismissed the application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) as it was not pursued, given that the appellant and his co-accused had already been summoned in the complaint case. The trial court subsequently combined the complaint case with the state case and directed the framing of charges under Section 306 IPC. Consequently, a charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and Harminder Singh, also known as Montu.

Dissatisfied with the charge framing, the appellant filed a revision petition with the High Court, which was dismissed on February 17, 2009. Following this decision, the appellant has sought recourse from the court. The High Court noted that the evidence against the appellant extended beyond the suicide note, encompassing threats and derogatory remarks directed at the deceased and his father over several days. The appellant contends that it is crucial to highlight that if the threats or derogatory remarks made by him had influenced the deceased’s state of mind or contributed to the act of suicide, such details should have been included in the suicide note. However, the note does not reference any actions or statements made by the appellant. The appellant argues that in the absence of substantial evidence against him, no charges should be established under Section 306 of the IPC.

JUDGEMENT

The appellant, S.S. Chheena, was implicated in the suicide of his nephew, Saurav Mahajan, due to a suicide note that contained unfounded accusations against the deceased. An FIR was filed under Section 306 of the IPC, charging both Chheena and Harminder Singh (also known as Montu) with abetting the suicide. Chheena contested the charges, arguing that there was no substantial evidence against him.

The High Court affirmed the charges, citing not only the suicide note but also other threatening and degrading communications. The Court observed that for an individual to be held accountable under Section 306 of the IPC, it is essential to demonstrate that the accused’s actions or behaviour directly contributed to the victim reaching a mental state where suicide appeared to be their sole option. The court underscored the necessity of establishing a clear causal relationship between the actions of the accused and the victim’s choice to end their life.

The appellant contended that the suicide of the deceased could not be linked to any form of harassment or coercion from him. The Supreme Court stressed that there must be evidence of a deliberate act by the accused that resulted in the suicide. Simply having workplace conflicts or disagreements does not suffice to establish the abetment of suicide. Upon reviewing the facts and evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no direct or adequate evidence indicating that the appellant had intentionally induced the victim to take their own life. The Court determined that the charge of abetment of suicide was not substantiated in this instance and that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant’s actions constituted abetment as defined under Section 306 of the IPC. However, the Supreme Court reversed this ruling, highlighting the absence of direct evidence connecting Chheena to any act of abetment. The court stated that a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot stand without clear mens rea and direct evidence.

As a result, the Supreme Court granted the appeal, nullifying the High Court’s order and dismissing all proceedings against Chheena.

REASONING

In this case, the Supreme Court determined that there was inadequate evidence to prosecute the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetting suicide. The court explained that to establish a charge of abetment, there must be definitive evidence connecting the actions of the accused to the victim’s act of suicide. It highlighted that conflicts or tensions in the workplace, absent any direct encouragement or coercion from the accused, do not qualify as abetment of suicide.

Ultimately, the court found that the appellant’s behaviour did not provide a sufficient basis for criminal responsibility under the applicable legal provisions.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case emphasises the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness, especially in sensitive cases involving personal tragedies like suicide. By setting a high burden of proof for abetment charges under Section 306 IPC, the court ensures that individuals are not wrongfully prosecuted without substantial and direct evidence of their involvement. This judgement serves as a crucial guide for future cases, promoting balanced charges.

In the broader legal context, this decision strengthens the necessity for clear, intentional, and provable links between the accused’s actions and the act of suicide, thereby safeguarding individuals from baseless criminal prosecutions.

REFERENCES 

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/850589/ 
• https://ndl.iitkgp.ac.in/lw_document/supreme_court_india/supreme_court/29439?e=0|s.s.%20chheena%20vs.%20vijay%20kumar%20mahajan%20and%20another|||
• https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aeece4b014971141529d
• https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/abetment-of-suicide-under-section-306-ipc:-insights-from-s.s-chheena-v.-vijay-kumar-mahajan/view 

This article is written by Nidhi Mishra student of the CMP Degree College, Allahabad University intern in Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or 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 personal.