Remedies against harassment by Recovery Agents
by: Adv. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar 2021-02-18 07:12:13
by: Adv. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar 2021-02-18 07:12:13
by: admin 2021-02-12 07:34:18
by: Admin 2021-02-04 07:13:42
by: Adv. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar 2021-02-03 11:47:51
by: Adv. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar 2021-01-25 14:10:26
by: Adv. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar 2021-01-14 12:43:56
Remedies against harassment by Recovery Agents
Abetment to Suicide
Overview of the Vehicle Scrappage Policy
Rights of husbands in dowry and cruelty-based complaints
Admissibility of E-evidence; Are WhatsApp chats and E-mails admissible in Court?
Triloki Nath Singh V/s Anirudh Singh
Milmet Oftho & Ors. V/s Allergan Inc.
Director of Income Tax II (International Taxation) V/s M/s Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
M/s ExL Careers V/s Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd V/s Babulal Lade & Ors.
Constitutionality of Bandhs
State of Himachal Pradesh V/s A parent of a student of a Medical College & Ors.
Rathnamma & Ors. V/s Sujathamma & Ors.
Ravinder Kaur Grewal V/s Manjit Kaur
Ficus Pax Pvt. Ltd. V/s Union of Indian & Ors.
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Chandra Sekhar
Analysis of Section 41-A of CRPC, 1973
Judgment: Indian Bank V/s Abs Marine Product Pvt. Ltd.
Kailas & Ors. V/s State of Maharashtra
Sukhedu Das Vs Rita Mukherjee
Witness to a Will
National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Hindustan Safety Glass Works
Mahalakshmi V/s Bala Venkatram (d) through LR & Anr.
Kajal V/s Jagdish Chand
Shyamal Kumar V/s Sushil Kumar Agarwal
NRI's Power of Attorney
Megha Khandelwal V/s Rajat Khandelwal and Ors.
Is Registration Compulsory under Trademark and Copyright?
Md. Eqbal & Anrs. V/s State of Jharkhand
Types of Will
Employment Contract
Police Clearance Certificate
Validity of Crypto-Currency in India
A. Jayachandra V/s Aneelkaur
Points to be considered before filing an Income Tax Return
Union of India V/s N. K. Shrivasta
Startup under the Government Programme
The procedure for filing a complaint against a Lawyer
Types of Stamp Paper
Satvinder Singh V/s State of Bihar
Sexual Violence laws under the Indian Penal Code
Shreya Singhal V/s Union of India
Division of Assets
Shaleen Kabra V/s Shiwani Kabra
Types of Property
Vasant Kumar V/s Vijaykumari
Personal Injury - Damages
Adultery under the Indian Law
United Commercial Bank & Anr. V/s Deepak Debbarma & others
Intentional Wrongs
Vinay Kumar Mittal & Others V/s Deewan Housing Financial Corporation Limited
How to get a Marriage Certificate?
Mohammed Siddique Vs National Insurance Company Ltd
Pagdi System
The Bonus Act
Frivolous Complaints under the Sexual Harassment Act
Important Income Tax Return Forms and its Due Dates
Garden Leave
How can a Private Complaint be filed?
Key changes to Indian Tax Regulations
Employees Provident Fund
Status of Triple Talaq
Contract Farming & the new ordinances that affect the Farmers
Documents required for filing a Divorce
Section 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881
Validity and Enforceability of Click-wrap Agreements
Child Custody under Christian and Parsi Law
Hindu Succession Act
Oppression and Mismanagement
Fraudulent and Invalid Contracts
Developments in Reserve Bank of India
Loan Frauds in India
Penalties associated with Driving
Laws governing a Knife
Medical Negligence and its Compensation
Interim Maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act
Shortcomings of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Tougher rules for the E-Commerce Industry
Difficulties faced by men in Family Courts
The consumer is the King in 2020
Illegal Termination of an Employee during Covid-19.
Child Labour Laws in times of Covid-19
Real Estate scenario Post Covid-19
Post Covid-19 Digital Shift of Legal practise
Mutual Consent Divorce through Video Conferencing
59 Chinese Apps banned in India
Litigants and the Lockdown - A Court Perspective
Anticipatory Bail for cases under section 498A of IPC
Brand Protection in times of Covid-19
Title Verification of Immovable Property
The Judiciary during the Pandemic
Termination of an Employee during Covid-19
Drafting of a Will
Criminal Medical Negligence in times of Covid-19
How does Covid-19 affect employers and employees?
Rent deference during the Pandemic
Post Covid-19 digital shift of legal practise
Police Interrogation
Prenuptial Agreements
Void and Voidable Contracts
The Negotiable Instrument Act 1881
Cheque Bounce Notice
Types of Dishonour of Cheques
Intestate Succession
The Stand of Essential Commodities
Trademark Cease and Desist Notice
IT Department Notice
Eviction of a Tenant
Consumer Complaint Legal Notice
Medical Adherence to Environmental Laws
Basic Elements of Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Debt Recovery Notice
Cheque Bounce Notice
Hygiene maintenance in Hospitals and Clinics
Consequences of using a Fake Degree/Certificate
Healthcare Security
Rights of Doctors with respect to Medical Negligence
Importance of Consent
Faulty Machine Aids Medical Negligence
The Special Marriage Act, 1954
Top 2019 judgements by Supreme Court
National Medical Commission Act 2019
Money Laundering
Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)
Child Labour
Endorsement under Negotiable Instrument Act
Quashing of an FIR
Annulment of Marriage
Probate
FAQ's on Trademark
EMI - Equated Monthly Installments
Legal mistakes made by the Start-Up
What is a Stamp Paper?
Sexual Abuse in Shelter Homes
Debt Recovery provisions under the SARFAESI Act
Effective ways to stop Ragging
Transfer of Property Act
Personal Injury Lawyers
Marriage Registration under the Special Marriage Act
Rights of Tenant
Classification of various Collar Jobs
Documents to be submitted for ITR Filing
Illegal Immigrants
Role of lawyers in Corporate Finance
Intestate Succession
Employment of White Collar Employment of White Collar
Domestic Violence
Power of Attorney
Dissolution of Marriage - Christian
Noting And Protest
Hostile Witness
Unfair Trade Practice
All you need to know: Drafting a Legal Notice
Fraudulent and unauthorized transactions at ATM
Is legal documentation important in medical practice?
Why do doctors need to be updated with medical negligence laws?
Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019
Jurisdiction of Consumer Redressal Forums
Does telephonic consultations amount to culpable negligence?
Consumer dispute Redressal Forum in dealing with Medical Negligence
Validity of Notices.
Response to a Legal Notice
Promotion of Medical Products.
Doctors' Bill: Prohibition of Violence & Damage to Property Bill, 2019.
Why less Indemnity cover is risky for Doctors?
Procedure for filing a Notice in India
Format of Legal Notices in India
Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019
Demerger
Legal framework for the Elimination of violence against Women in India
International Day for the Elimination of violence against Women
Family Courts in India
Inheritance Law in India
Rights of Children in India
Virtual Clinic
New Medical Technologies in India
Land Records & Titles
Regulations for firecrackers during Diwali
Legal and Regulatory Regime: Medical Technology
Intellectual Property in Medicine
Consumer Protection Bill, 2019
Artificial Intelligence in healthcare
The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act
Warrant and its Types
Joint Custody of Child in India
Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)
Penal Provision on Rash and Negligent Driving
National Company Law Tribunal
Rules to be followed by the Ganpati Mandals
Need to amend CrPC and IPC to increase the conviction rate.
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2019
The Growth of technology Patents in India
Citizenship under the Indian Constitution
Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution
A comparative study of the Indian, UK and the US Constitution
Can the Indian Constitution be Amended?
Overview of the Indian Constitution
All you need to know: Drafting a Legal Notice
Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019
Overview of The Indian Penal Code
Offences and Prosecution under the Income Tax Act, 1961
The abolishment of Article 370 of the Constitution: One Nation One Flag
Intervention of SC in the Unnao Rape Case
Case of abandoned NRI brides, Supreme Court issues notice to the State
Financial Risk Management
Know more about Equal Remuneration Act, 1976
Procedure to File Complain against Domestic Violence
The IndiGo Promotors Feud
Rajya Sabha passes the Triple Talaq Bill
Gift Deed
More about Contested Divorce
Things to be kept in mind - Dishonor of Cheque
Prison Reforms in India
Consumer Protection ACT, 1986
More about Joint Venture
Delay of Condonation
Points to be Noted for Child Custody to Father
Basic information of Companies
Plastic Money and their Advantage & Disadvantages
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
Guidelines to protect doctors from frivolous and unjust prosecution
Unjust Compensation - A Doctors Perspective
Misdiagnosis: A Medical Negligence?
Exemption of doctors operating in Emergency Rooms
General Types of Medico-Legal Cases (MLC)
Duty of patient to avoid aiding Medical Negligence
Rights of the Patient
Steps to be taken to avoid Medical Negligence
Liability of Medical Negligence under Consumer Protection Act
Laws that affect Medical Professionals in India
Defense against Medical Negligence Cases
Duties of Doctors
Common types of Medical Negligence
Medical Consent for treatment in India
Regulation for E - Pharmacy in India
Types of Consent for Medical Treatment
Guidelines for Autopsy/ Postmortem in India
Guidelines for the prescription of medicines
Procedure to start a Pharmacy Store in India
India Vs Pakistan: Kulbhushan Jadhav's Case
Contempt of Court
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
Bankruptcy & Insolvency in India
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
Guardian and Ward Act In India
Medical Negligence in India
Procedure to be followed in Civil Recovery Proceedings
Rights of Consumers
Mandatory Registration of Documents and procedure
Rafale Deal And All About The Controversy
He/She instigates someone to commit suicide.
Section 108 of the IPC defines the abettor. A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of a crime or the commission of such an act, which would have been an offence if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same purpose or information as that of the abettor.
In accordance to Section 306 of Indian Penal Code-If any individual commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, he/she shall be punished with the sentence of either for a term, which may extend for a period of ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 306
Section 306 states that “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to 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. The court will not allow withdrawal of a case involving a non-compoundable offence.
How did Section 306 come into force
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added in order to prevent sati. In those days the tradition of sati was widespread in India. The suffering of the widows used to lead them to commit Sati. In order to eliminate this iniquity, this provision was added consequently. It was established that wife had committed suicide consequent to ill-treatment meted out to her by mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband. It was held that these persons were liable to be convicted under sections 306 for abetting her to commit suicide. Due to not bringing sufficient dowry, the accused was ill-treating the deceased. The evidence on the record made out a case of persistent and unabated harassment and cruelty. This compelled the deceased to commit suicide by consuming a poisonous substance. The accused’s husband was held guilty under sections 306 and 498-A.
Before the offence under section 306 can be proved, the presence of mens rea is of utmost importance.
To hold a person guilty of abetment to commit suicide under the said provision, there has to be a clear mens rea on his part to instigate another to commit suicide. There should be objective to aggravate, incite or persuade the doing of the act by the other individual. The suicide must necessarily have been committed, also, a person may abet suicide by words or conduct, or both. A person is said to have instigated another to commit suicide when he, by his acts or omissions or a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the other was left with no other alternative but to commit suicide. Words that a person speaks in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention of making anyone commit suicide, does not amount to abetment. Some active role in the commission of suicide by the accused needs to be proved to hold him responsible for abetting it. Without action on the part of the accused person to instigate or aid the deceased person committing suicide, the conviction is not sustainable.
The scope and ambit of section 306 of IPC
Abetment is a procedure in which there is a mental progression of instigating an individual or intentionally aiding a person in doing a particular act. The purpose of the legislature and the proportion of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is obvious that in order to charge a person under section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 there has to be a lucid mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires a dynamic act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no alternative and that act must have been intended to put the deceased into such a point that he had to commit suicide.
In the landmark judgement of M. Mohan Vs. State, the Apex Court held that there should be a close link between the act of the accused and the act of committing suicide. If the link is not present, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide. Meagre threats of involving the family in false and frivolous cases cannot be held to equivalent to instigation. Abetment thus essentially means some active proposition or support to the commission of the offence.
In Gurcharan Singh Vs. the State of Punjab, it is mentioned that the necessary ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To encompass abetment, the meaning and involvement of the accused to aid or bring about the commission of suicide is very important. Any severance or deficiency of any of these constituents would militate against this condemnation.
Presumption of abetment
As to offence of abetment to commit suicide, section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that
(a) if a married lady commits suicide within seven years of her marriage;
(b) if her husband or his relative had subjected her to cruelty within the meaning of the term as defined in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, then the Court may raise the presumption of the fact that the husband or such relative of her husband abetted the suicide.
As to the presumption of abetment to commit suicide dealt with in section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 it is applicable when the husband or any relative of his is guilty of cruelty to the wife, he or she is punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In short the first requisite for attracting the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872, must be proved that the wife was subjected to cruelty as defined in section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The simple fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a phase of seven years of her marriage, the assumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 would not automatically apply. The presumption under Section 113-A is discretionary, and the Court can consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected to, having regard to the meaning of the word “cruelty” in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the case of Appasaheb Vs. the State of Maharashtra (the important issue of offences related to dowry) Appasaheb was convicted for the death of his wife, Bhimabai, after she consumed poison. A case was registered against him and his mother under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty against the woman for dowry), and 306 (abetment of suicide). Though the accused were acquitted for the offence of cruelty and abetment, the husband was convicted on the charge of dowry death. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court Bench quashed the conviction and said the statement of the mother of the deceased did not state that the cause for ill-treatment was a demand for money and consequent beating.
In the present case, the Supreme Court’s interpretation is at odds with the purpose of the legislation. Rather than looking at the enactment as social reform legislation, the judgment equates it with the legislation in the area of any trade, business or transaction.
Proof of concept
Instigation has to be collected from the situation of the case. Not all cases may be of direct evidence about instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the state of affairs produced by the accused are such that a person feels very aggravated and finds it difficult to continue survival.
In Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court reiterated the legal jurisprudence that was laid down in its earlier judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh and held that where the accused by his acts or continuous course of behaviour creates such circumstances that the deceased person was left with no other substitute except the option to commit suicide, an instigation may be indirect. In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be recognized that:
Conclusion
Abetment of suicide, be it either instigating the victim or aiding the victim in the commission of the suicide. The accused can defeat the penal provisions dealing with such offence very easily, as the scope of the provision is limited to only three categories, which is actually a loophole. Therefore, there is an urgent requirement to amend the provisions which deals with the offence of abetment, in such a manner that the criminals are not unable to evade the legislations, mend the cases suiting their own requirements, and break away from the punishments. In addition, the laws are needed to be interpreted not strictly in a confined manner. However, according to the facts and circumstances of each case so that justice prevails. The current definition of abetment falls short. The section covers abetment by way of aid, instigation and conspiracy, but there are instances where the actions of the person do not strictly fall in these three categories but pressurize a person to commit suicide.
">
A person is accountable for abetment to suicide when any of the following conditions are fulfilled:
Section 108 of the IPC defines the abettor. A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of a crime or the commission of such an act, which would have been an offence if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same purpose or information as that of the abettor.
In accordance to Section 306 of Indian Penal Code-If any individual commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, he/she shall be punished with the sentence of either for a term, which may extend for a period of ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 306
Section 306 states that “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to 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. The court will not allow withdrawal of a case involving a non-compoundable offence.
How did Section 306 come into force
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added in order to prevent sati. In those days the tradition of sati was widespread in India. The suffering of the widows used to lead them to commit Sati. In order to eliminate this iniquity, this provision was added consequently. It was established that wife had committed suicide consequent to ill-treatment meted out to her by mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband. It was held that these persons were liable to be convicted under sections 306 for abetting her to commit suicide. Due to not bringing sufficient dowry, the accused was ill-treating the deceased. The evidence on the record made out a case of persistent and unabated harassment and cruelty. This compelled the deceased to commit suicide by consuming a poisonous substance. The accused’s husband was held guilty under sections 306 and 498-A.
Before the offence under section 306 can be proved, the presence of mens rea is of utmost importance.
To hold a person guilty of abetment to commit suicide under the said provision, there has to be a clear mens rea on his part to instigate another to commit suicide. There should be objective to aggravate, incite or persuade the doing of the act by the other individual. The suicide must necessarily have been committed, also, a person may abet suicide by words or conduct, or both. A person is said to have instigated another to commit suicide when he, by his acts or omissions or a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the other was left with no other alternative but to commit suicide. Words that a person speaks in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention of making anyone commit suicide, does not amount to abetment. Some active role in the commission of suicide by the accused needs to be proved to hold him responsible for abetting it. Without action on the part of the accused person to instigate or aid the deceased person committing suicide, the conviction is not sustainable.
The scope and ambit of section 306 of IPC
Abetment is a procedure in which there is a mental progression of instigating an individual or intentionally aiding a person in doing a particular act. The purpose of the legislature and the proportion of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is obvious that in order to charge a person under section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 there has to be a lucid mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires a dynamic act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no alternative and that act must have been intended to put the deceased into such a point that he had to commit suicide.
In the landmark judgement of M. Mohan Vs. State, the Apex Court held that there should be a close link between the act of the accused and the act of committing suicide. If the link is not present, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide. Meagre threats of involving the family in false and frivolous cases cannot be held to equivalent to instigation. Abetment thus essentially means some active proposition or support to the commission of the offence.
In Gurcharan Singh Vs. the State of Punjab, it is mentioned that the necessary ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To encompass abetment, the meaning and involvement of the accused to aid or bring about the commission of suicide is very important. Any severance or deficiency of any of these constituents would militate against this condemnation.
Presumption of abetment
As to offence of abetment to commit suicide, section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that
(a) if a married lady commits suicide within seven years of her marriage;
(b) if her husband or his relative had subjected her to cruelty within the meaning of the term as defined in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, then the Court may raise the presumption of the fact that the husband or such relative of her husband abetted the suicide.
As to the presumption of abetment to commit suicide dealt with in section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 it is applicable when the husband or any relative of his is guilty of cruelty to the wife, he or she is punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In short the first requisite for attracting the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872, must be proved that the wife was subjected to cruelty as defined in section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The simple fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a phase of seven years of her marriage, the assumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 would not automatically apply. The presumption under Section 113-A is discretionary, and the Court can consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected to, having regard to the meaning of the word “cruelty” in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the case of Appasaheb Vs. the State of Maharashtra (the important issue of offences related to dowry) Appasaheb was convicted for the death of his wife, Bhimabai, after she consumed poison. A case was registered against him and his mother under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty against the woman for dowry), and 306 (abetment of suicide). Though the accused were acquitted for the offence of cruelty and abetment, the husband was convicted on the charge of dowry death. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court Bench quashed the conviction and said the statement of the mother of the deceased did not state that the cause for ill-treatment was a demand for money and consequent beating.
In the present case, the Supreme Court’s interpretation is at odds with the purpose of the legislation. Rather than looking at the enactment as social reform legislation, the judgment equates it with the legislation in the area of any trade, business or transaction.
Proof of concept
Instigation has to be collected from the situation of the case. Not all cases may be of direct evidence about instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the state of affairs produced by the accused are such that a person feels very aggravated and finds it difficult to continue survival.
In Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court reiterated the legal jurisprudence that was laid down in its earlier judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh and held that where the accused by his acts or continuous course of behaviour creates such circumstances that the deceased person was left with no other substitute except the option to commit suicide, an instigation may be indirect. In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be recognized that:
Conclusion
Abetment of suicide, be it either instigating the victim or aiding the victim in the commission of the suicide. The accused can defeat the penal provisions dealing with such offence very easily, as the scope of the provision is limited to only three categories, which is actually a loophole. Therefore, there is an urgent requirement to amend the provisions which deals with the offence of abetment, in such a manner that the criminals are not unable to evade the legislations, mend the cases suiting their own requirements, and break away from the punishments. In addition, the laws are needed to be interpreted not strictly in a confined manner. However, according to the facts and circumstances of each case so that justice prevails. The current definition of abetment falls short. The section covers abetment by way of aid, instigation and conspiracy, but there are instances where the actions of the person do not strictly fall in these three categories but pressurize a person to commit suicide.
">
A person is accountable for abetment to suicide when any of the following conditions are fulfilled:
Section 108 of the IPC defines the abettor. A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of a crime or the commission of such an act, which would have been an offence if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same purpose or information as that of the abettor.
In accordance to Section 306 of Indian Penal Code-If any individual commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, he/she shall be punished with the sentence of either for a term, which may extend for a period of ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 306
Section 306 states that “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to 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. The court will not allow withdrawal of a case involving a non-compoundable offence.
How did Section 306 come into force
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added in order to prevent sati. In those days the tradition of sati was widespread in India. The suffering of the widows used to lead them to commit Sati. In order to eliminate this iniquity, this provision was added consequently. It was established that wife had committed suicide consequent to ill-treatment meted out to her by mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband. It was held that these persons were liable to be convicted under sections 306 for abetting her to commit suicide. Due to not bringing sufficient dowry, the accused was ill-treating the deceased. The evidence on the record made out a case of persistent and unabated harassment and cruelty. This compelled the deceased to commit suicide by consuming a poisonous substance. The accused’s husband was held guilty under sections 306 and 498-A.
Before the offence under section 306 can be proved, the presence of mens rea is of utmost importance.
To hold a person guilty of abetment to commit suicide under the said provision, there has to be a clear mens rea on his part to instigate another to commit suicide. There should be objective to aggravate, incite or persuade the doing of the act by the other individual. The suicide must necessarily have been committed, also, a person may abet suicide by words or conduct, or both. A person is said to have instigated another to commit suicide when he, by his acts or omissions or a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the other was left with no other alternative but to commit suicide. Words that a person speaks in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention of making anyone commit suicide, does not amount to abetment. Some active role in the commission of suicide by the accused needs to be proved to hold him responsible for abetting it. Without action on the part of the accused person to instigate or aid the deceased person committing suicide, the conviction is not sustainable.
The scope and ambit of section 306 of IPC
Abetment is a procedure in which there is a mental progression of instigating an individual or intentionally aiding a person in doing a particular act. The purpose of the legislature and the proportion of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is obvious that in order to charge a person under section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 there has to be a lucid mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires a dynamic act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no alternative and that act must have been intended to put the deceased into such a point that he had to commit suicide.
In the landmark judgement of M. Mohan Vs. State, the Apex Court held that there should be a close link between the act of the accused and the act of committing suicide. If the link is not present, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide. Meagre threats of involving the family in false and frivolous cases cannot be held to equivalent to instigation. Abetment thus essentially means some active proposition or support to the commission of the offence.
In Gurcharan Singh Vs. the State of Punjab, it is mentioned that the necessary ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To encompass abetment, the meaning and involvement of the accused to aid or bring about the commission of suicide is very important. Any severance or deficiency of any of these constituents would militate against this condemnation.
Presumption of abetment
As to offence of abetment to commit suicide, section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that
(a) if a married lady commits suicide within seven years of her marriage;
(b) if her husband or his relative had subjected her to cruelty within the meaning of the term as defined in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, then the Court may raise the presumption of the fact that the husband or such relative of her husband abetted the suicide.
As to the presumption of abetment to commit suicide dealt with in section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 it is applicable when the husband or any relative of his is guilty of cruelty to the wife, he or she is punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In short the first requisite for attracting the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872, must be proved that the wife was subjected to cruelty as defined in section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The simple fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a phase of seven years of her marriage, the assumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 would not automatically apply. The presumption under Section 113-A is discretionary, and the Court can consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected to, having regard to the meaning of the word “cruelty” in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the case of Appasaheb Vs. the State of Maharashtra (the important issue of offences related to dowry) Appasaheb was convicted for the death of his wife, Bhimabai, after she consumed poison. A case was registered against him and his mother under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty against the woman for dowry), and 306 (abetment of suicide). Though the accused were acquitted for the offence of cruelty and abetment, the husband was convicted on the charge of dowry death. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court Bench quashed the conviction and said the statement of the mother of the deceased did not state that the cause for ill-treatment was a demand for money and consequent beating.
In the present case, the Supreme Court’s interpretation is at odds with the purpose of the legislation. Rather than looking at the enactment as social reform legislation, the judgment equates it with the legislation in the area of any trade, business or transaction.
Proof of concept
Instigation has to be collected from the situation of the case. Not all cases may be of direct evidence about instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the state of affairs produced by the accused are such that a person feels very aggravated and finds it difficult to continue survival.
In Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court reiterated the legal jurisprudence that was laid down in its earlier judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh and held that where the accused by his acts or continuous course of behaviour creates such circumstances that the deceased person was left with no other substitute except the option to commit suicide, an instigation may be indirect. In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be recognized that:
Conclusion
Abetment of suicide, be it either instigating the victim or aiding the victim in the commission of the suicide. The accused can defeat the penal provisions dealing with such offence very easily, as the scope of the provision is limited to only three categories, which is actually a loophole. Therefore, there is an urgent requirement to amend the provisions which deals with the offence of abetment, in such a manner that the criminals are not unable to evade the legislations, mend the cases suiting their own requirements, and break away from the punishments. In addition, the laws are needed to be interpreted not strictly in a confined manner. However, according to the facts and circumstances of each case so that justice prevails. The current definition of abetment falls short. The section covers abetment by way of aid, instigation and conspiracy, but there are instances where the actions of the person do not strictly fall in these three categories but pressurize a person to commit suicide.
">
A person is accountable for abetment to suicide when any of the following conditions are fulfilled:
Section 108 of the IPC defines the abettor. A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of a crime or the commission of such an act, which would have been an offence if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same purpose or information as that of the abettor.
In accordance to Section 306 of Indian Penal Code-If any individual commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, he/she shall be punished with the sentence of either for a term, which may extend for a period of ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 306
Section 306 states that “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to 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. The court will not allow withdrawal of a case involving a non-compoundable offence.
How did Section 306 come into force
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added in order to prevent sati. In those days the tradition of sati was widespread in India. The suffering of the widows used to lead them to commit Sati. In order to eliminate this iniquity, this provision was added consequently. It was established that wife had committed suicide consequent to ill-treatment meted out to her by mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband. It was held that these persons were liable to be convicted under sections 306 for abetting her to commit suicide. Due to not bringing sufficient dowry, the accused was ill-treating the deceased. The evidence on the record made out a case of persistent and unabated harassment and cruelty. This compelled the deceased to commit suicide by consuming a poisonous substance. The accused’s husband was held guilty under sections 306 and 498-A.
Before the offence under section 306 can be proved, the presence of mens rea is of utmost importance.
To hold a person guilty of abetment to commit suicide under the said provision, there has to be a clear mens rea on his part to instigate another to commit suicide. There should be objective to aggravate, incite or persuade the doing of the act by the other individual. The suicide must necessarily have been committed, also, a person may abet suicide by words or conduct, or both. A person is said to have instigated another to commit suicide when he, by his acts or omissions or a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the other was left with no other alternative but to commit suicide. Words that a person speaks in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention of making anyone commit suicide, does not amount to abetment. Some active role in the commission of suicide by the accused needs to be proved to hold him responsible for abetting it. Without action on the part of the accused person to instigate or aid the deceased person committing suicide, the conviction is not sustainable.
The scope and ambit of section 306 of IPC
Abetment is a procedure in which there is a mental progression of instigating an individual or intentionally aiding a person in doing a particular act. The purpose of the legislature and the proportion of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is obvious that in order to charge a person under section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 there has to be a lucid mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires a dynamic act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no alternative and that act must have been intended to put the deceased into such a point that he had to commit suicide.
In the landmark judgement of M. Mohan Vs. State, the Apex Court held that there should be a close link between the act of the accused and the act of committing suicide. If the link is not present, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide. Meagre threats of involving the family in false and frivolous cases cannot be held to equivalent to instigation. Abetment thus essentially means some active proposition or support to the commission of the offence.
In Gurcharan Singh Vs. the State of Punjab, it is mentioned that the necessary ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To encompass abetment, the meaning and involvement of the accused to aid or bring about the commission of suicide is very important. Any severance or deficiency of any of these constituents would militate against this condemnation.
Presumption of abetment
As to offence of abetment to commit suicide, section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that
(a) if a married lady commits suicide within seven years of her marriage;
(b) if her husband or his relative had subjected her to cruelty within the meaning of the term as defined in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, then the Court may raise the presumption of the fact that the husband or such relative of her husband abetted the suicide.
As to the presumption of abetment to commit suicide dealt with in section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 it is applicable when the husband or any relative of his is guilty of cruelty to the wife, he or she is punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In short the first requisite for attracting the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872, must be proved that the wife was subjected to cruelty as defined in section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The simple fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a phase of seven years of her marriage, the assumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 would not automatically apply. The presumption under Section 113-A is discretionary, and the Court can consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected to, having regard to the meaning of the word “cruelty” in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the case of Appasaheb Vs. the State of Maharashtra (the important issue of offences related to dowry) Appasaheb was convicted for the death of his wife, Bhimabai, after she consumed poison. A case was registered against him and his mother under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty against the woman for dowry), and 306 (abetment of suicide). Though the accused were acquitted for the offence of cruelty and abetment, the husband was convicted on the charge of dowry death. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court Bench quashed the conviction and said the statement of the mother of the deceased did not state that the cause for ill-treatment was a demand for money and consequent beating.
In the present case, the Supreme Court’s interpretation is at odds with the purpose of the legislation. Rather than looking at the enactment as social reform legislation, the judgment equates it with the legislation in the area of any trade, business or transaction.
Proof of concept
Instigation has to be collected from the situation of the case. Not all cases may be of direct evidence about instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the state of affairs produced by the accused are such that a person feels very aggravated and finds it difficult to continue survival.
In Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court reiterated the legal jurisprudence that was laid down in its earlier judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh and held that where the accused by his acts or continuous course of behaviour creates such circumstances that the deceased person was left with no other substitute except the option to commit suicide, an instigation may be indirect. In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be recognized that:
Conclusion
Abetment of suicide, be it either instigating the victim or aiding the victim in the commission of the suicide. The accused can defeat the penal provisions dealing with such offence very easily, as the scope of the provision is limited to only three categories, which is actually a loophole. Therefore, there is an urgent requirement to amend the provisions which deals with the offence of abetment, in such a manner that the criminals are not unable to evade the legislations, mend the cases suiting their own requirements, and break away from the punishments. In addition, the laws are needed to be interpreted not strictly in a confined manner. However, according to the facts and circumstances of each case so that justice prevails. The current definition of abetment falls short. The section covers abetment by way of aid, instigation and conspiracy, but there are instances where the actions of the person do not strictly fall in these three categories but pressurize a person to commit suicide.
Comment
Share