Why in news?

Recently, the Supreme Court had said that police and the courts should avoid “unnecessary prosecutions” in cases of abetment of suicide stemming from the workplace.

The court was hearing the case of a salesman who died by suicide after alleged harassment from senior officers in his company.

What’s in today’s article?

• Abetment of suicide
• Background of the present case
• Ruling of SC in the present case
• Previous Court Rulings on Abetment of Suicide

Abetment of suicide

• About
  • Abetment of suicide refers to the act of encouraging, instigating, or aiding another person to commit suicide.
• Abetment under Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023
  • ‘Abetment’ is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which is the same as Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
  • A person abets the doing of a thing, if he:
    • instigates any person to do that thing, or
    • engages with one or more others in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or
    • intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
  • In legal cases, proving abetment often requires showing a clear connection between the accused's actions and the deceased's suicide, typically through direct or strong encouragement.
• Punishment
  • The punishment for abetment of suicide provided under Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS) can be up to 10 years imprisonment along with a fine.
  • Abetment of suicide is an offence tried in a Sessions court and is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable in nature.
    • Cognizable offence: A police officer can make an arrest without a warrant from a court.
    • Non-bailable offence: Bail is granted to the accused at the discretion of the court, and not as a matter of right.
    • Non-compoundable offence: The case cannot be withdrawn by the complainant even when the complainant and the accused have reached a compromise.

Background of the present case

• According to the FIR, senior officers at a company had "compelled" and "harassed" a salesman, Rajeev Jain, to opt for the company's Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in 2006.
• Jain, who had served the company for more than 23 years, refused to take the VRS despite persistent pressure from his senior officers, including his team’s head.
• Later, Jain committed suicide by hanging himself. His brother, Rajnish, filed a case against the senior officers, accusing them of abetting Jain's suicide.
• The Allahabad High Court, upon reviewing the officers' plea to quash the case, held that there was a direct link between the meeting where Jain felt "humiliated and threatened" and his subsequent suicide.
• The present ruling by SC comes against this backdrop.

Ruling by the SC

• Overturned Previous Judgment
  • The bench overturned a 2017 Allahabad High Court decision, finding insufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of abetment in the suicide of a employee who felt harassed by superiors.
• Direct Incitement Required
  • The Supreme Court (SC) emphasized that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be direct and alarming encouragement or incitement by the accused.
  • It highlighted the need for direct incitement or overwhelming harassment that leads to psychological distress, distinguishing between emotional conflicts and clear-cut cases of abetment.
• Categories of Relationships
  • The judgment delineated two main categories of relationships that could lead to charges of abetment:
    • Personal Relationships: In intimate relationships (e.g., family ties), emotional disputes can trigger psychological distress, but a simple argument or harsh exchange is insufficient for abetment.
    • Professional Relationships: For official relationships, professional disputes must reach an extreme level of harassment to meet the criteria for abetment.
• Requirements for Conviction
  • To secure a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, the court clarified that there must be evidence indicating that the accused intended to provoke the suicide or acted in a way that made the deceased feel trapped with no recourse.
  • The court emphasized that intention must be established through thorough examination of the context rather than assuming it solely based on the act of suicide.

Previous Court Rulings on Abetment of Suicide

• M Mohan v The State (2011)
  • The SC established a high standard for proving abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
  • The ruling specified that there must be a specific intent demonstrated by an active or direct act that compelled the deceased to take their own life, leaving them feeling as though there were no alternatives.
  • This act must have been intended to push the individual into a position leading to suicide.
• Karnataka High Court Ruling (July 2023)
  • In a notable case involving the suicide of an employee from the LGBT community, the Karnataka HC declined to quash proceedings against three accused individuals.
  • The court found that the accused, including team leaders and managers, had harassed the employee and made threats of sexual exploitation, contributing to the suicide in June 2023.
  • The HC emphasized that there are no specific parameters for interference in abetment of suicide cases.
  • It noted that actions such as tarnishing the self-esteem of a sensitive individual could establish guilt for abetting suicide.
  • Moreover, behaviors that irritate or annoy the deceased, pushing them to despair, would constitute abetment.
• Ude Singh v State of Haryana (2019)
  • In another case, the SC reaffirmed that establishing abetment of suicide relies heavily on the individual facts of each case.
  • The ruling stated that there must be a direct or indirect act of incitement leading to suicide.
  • The accused could be deemed guilty if evidence suggests they intended for the act (suicide) to occur, and the actions taken were aimed at that outcome. Each case must be assessed within the framework of Section 306 IPC.