ALL INDIA LEGAL FORUM

Date – 12.08.2020

Day - Day 3

Legal Legislation

ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

INTRODUCTION

Abetment of a thing as defined in section 107 of the IPC occurs when a person either
instigates another to do something or conspires with one or more persons to either act or
illegally omit to do an action thereby resulting in the doing of a thing in pursuance of that
conspiracy or when a person through wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Contiguity,
continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant
indices of abetment.

Abetment to suicide are as old as civilization itself. It is self-murder or self-destruction and it

is done in many ways in which life itself can be destroyed. Sections 305 and 306 of the IPC
deals with the cases where the acts of a person, as stated in section 107 directly or indirectly
causes another person to take his own life. Where section 305 deals with abetment of suicide
in case of minors and insane persons, while section 306 deals with abetment of suicide of a
person in general. Wherein, for bringing a case under section 305 and section 306 the suicide
must not be a mere attempt but it must have been completed.
ABETMENT OF SUICIDE DEFINED

SECTION 305 - ABETMENT OF SUICIDE OF A CHILD OR AN

INSANE PERSON

If any person under the age of eighteen years, any insane person, any delirious person, any
idiot or any person under a state of intoxication commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, as stated in section 107, shall be deemed to be guilty under this
section.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

The ingredients of abetment of suicide of a child or an insane person are:-

● The person who has committed suicide should be below the age of eighteen in case of
a child and should be insane, delirious, an idiot or intoxicated in case of an insane
person.

● Them committing suicide should be because of the abetment, i.e. a direct instigation,
a conspiracy or an act or omission of a duty to that person or to reveal something,
which results in the suicide of that person.

● The person should have an intention to commit suicide. But this isn’t necessary when
it comes to abetment of suicide of an insane person as they wouldn’t necessarily know
what they are doing.

It is not necessary that the abettor should have knowledge that his actions would cause the
person to take their own life, the section only calls for the need of actus reus and does not
specify the need for mens rea. So them not knowing that their actions would lead to another
committing suicide, is not a good defense for abetment of suicide given under section 305 of
the IPC.

The offense stated under this section is non-bailable, furthermore it is a cognizable offense.
ILLUSTRATIONS

● If ‘A’ persuades ‘B’ who is not in a proper state of mind i.e. is known to be mentally
unstable to kill himself by taking poison and ‘B’ takes it, then ‘A’ would be liable as
an abettor under this section.

● If ‘A’ sexually harasses ‘B’ a minor under the age of eighteen years to such an extent
that ‘B’ is inclined to commit suicide, then ‘A’ would be liable as an abettor under
this section.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

● In the first illustration, A had a clear intent to have B commit suicide by taking
poison. So, in this case A had both Actus reus i.e., causing the death of B by having
them take poison and Mens rea, i.e., the intention to have B kill himself through the
ingestion of poison and the knowledge that B would die if they had ingested the
poison and that B couldn't properly understand what they were doing because they
were mentally unstable.

● In the second illustration, even if A didn’t have the intention to have B commit
suicide, they are still liable as the section only calls for Actus reus and does not make
Mens rea a necessity. In this case, A had sexually harassed B who was a minor
repeatedly, and that too to such an extent that B had taken their own life. An Actus
reus is clearly present here as A’s acts were what lead B to commit suicide, and since
said actions were what directly lead to B’s suicide, A would be guilty of abetment of
suicide of a minor.
CASE STUDY

NAME OF THE CASE : Shaik Ibrahim vs The State Of A.P .1

FACTS OF THE CASE

● Thakur Bhavani ,aged about 15 and the three accused were residents of
Chinnaboinapally village, from where she would travel daily to Eturunagaram ,where
she was studying S.S.C.
● Two or three months before the commission of the offence, the three accused, who
were also students had pelted her with stones and eve-teased her, and she had gone to
her mother and her grandmother to complain about this.
● Because her mother had gone to the mother of the first appellant to complain about
her son, the intensity of their harassments had increased , even going so far as to say
that Bhavani was having illicit intimacy with him and attributed unchastity to her.
● Unable to bear insults of such nature, she ran into her house, doused herself in
kerosene and lit herself on fire and even though she was taken to a hospital, she had
died as a result of her injuries after 3-4 days.

CASE ANALYSIS

● In this case, the young girl was of 15 years of age and the repeated allegations made
against her, as they were relating to her charity, was too much for her to bear and she
set herself on fire and killed herself.
● This is the direct proximate action and the result of the utterances made by the first
appellant, i.e., Ibrahim.
● Even if the first appellant might not have expected her to resort to such drastic
measures after his harassment, as per clear evidence available on record, the first
accused had indeed made those utterances and they could not be disbelieved.
● Even if for want of legally acceptable evidence the second and third appellants were
entitled to benefit of doubt, the same cannot be said for the first appellant in light of
his direct involvement.
● Hence the court was of the considered opinion that , on consideration of both factual
aspects and questions of law involved in the matter, the deceased Bhavani would not
have committed suicide but for the acts and utterances made by the accused on the
fateful day. Therefore, in light of the peculiar facts, the court was satisfied that
ingredients of section 305 were satisfied.

1
2005 (1) ALD Cri 163, I (2005) DMC 535
JUDGEMENT
For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence imposed as against appellants 2
and 3 were set aside for want of legally acceptable evidence and the first appellant, taking
into consideration his age , the learned Sessions Judge sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years instead of the usual five, and also pay a fine of Rs.
1000/-, the default of which would result in an additional term of 6 months to be added to the
sentence of the first appellant.

SECTION 306- ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
deemed to be guilty of abetment of suicide of a person, as given under this section .

EXPLANATORY NOTES

The ingredients of abetment of suicide are as follows:

The prosecution has to prove-

● The deceased committed suicide;
● The accused instigated or abetted the commission of suicide;
● Direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary.
● The deceased should have knowingly committed suicide. Accidentally dying because
of an act done by the first party or as a result of instigation by the first party cannot be
included under this section.

NOTES

In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh2, the Supreme Court held that where the accused
by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased
was left with no other option but to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. In other
words in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to
be established that
A. The accused kept on annoying or irritating the deceased by words, deeds or wilful
omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or
pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to
make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction, and

2
2001 (9) SCC 618 : 2001 Cr LJ 4724.
 B. That the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to
commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of
mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.

The liability arises only when the suicide is committed. In case of an attempted suicide,
provisions of section 306 will not be applicable. In accordance with the definition of
‘abetment’ given in Section 107 of Indian Penal Code, the offense of abetment to suicide
must be constituted. There must be instigation, or engaging in conspiracy, or assistance in the
commission of the offense.

The basic constituents of an offense under section 306 are suicidal death and abetment
thereof. The direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 306

The constitutional validity of Section 306 has been upheld in Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v.
Union Of India And Others3. It was observed that Section 306 constitutes an entirely
independent offense. It is based on the principle of public policy that nobody should involve
himself in, or instigate, or aid, the commission of a crime. It is not violative of the Articles 14
and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

ILLUSTRATIONS

● If ‘A’ defames ‘B’ by humiliating her on social media and posting some obscene
pictures of her, as a result of which ‘B’ commits suicide then ‘A’ would be liable as
an abettor under this section.

● If ‘A’ a doctor to hasten his patient’s death ‘B’ who is terminally ill places the poison
by the patient’s bed, and he takes it then ‘A’ would be liable as an abettor under this
section.

3
1996 (1) BomCR 92, 1995 CriLJ 96, 1994 (2) MhLj 1850
EXPLANATORY NOTES

● In the first illustration, ‘A’ publically humiliated ‘B’ on social media and on top of
that, they also posted obscene pictures of ‘B’ which drove her to committing suicide.
Here, it’s clear that ‘B’ dies because of the actions of ‘A’ and even if ‘A’ didn’t have
an intention to have ‘B’ commit suicide, they are still guilty of abetting the suicide of
‘B’.

● In the second illustration, ‘A’ knowing that ‘B’ was terminally ill and also knowing
that ‘B’ would quite literally be at the end of their ropes which would severely affect
their mental state, placed a poison bottle near their bed to hasten their death. ‘B’,
because they didn’t want to suffer because of their illness, took the poison and
committed suicide. Here, not only had ‘B’ died as a direct result of the actions of ‘A’,
‘A’ had also known that ‘B’ would die if they had taken the poison. Therefore, it can
even be said that ‘A’ actually instigated ‘B’ to commit suicide and is clearly guilty of
abetment of suicide.

SECTION 498-A AND 306 ARE INDEPENDENT AND CONSTITUTE

DIFFERENT OFFENCES

Sections 498-A and 306, IPC are independent and constitute different offences, Though,
depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a woman to
cruelty may amount to an offence under section 498-A and may also, if a course of conduct
amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman except to commit
suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide. However, merely because an accused has
been held liable to be punished under section 498-A, IPC, it does not follow that on the same
evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of
suicide by the woman concerned.4

CASE STUDY

NAME OF THE CASE : Narwinder Singh vs The State of Punjab 5

FACTS OF THE CASE

● Sukhjit Kaur, the deceased was married to Narwinder Singh, the appellant. They had a
male child as their first child and the said incident took place when the deceased was
second time pregnant.

4
Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh 2001(9) SCC 618
5
2011 (2) SCC 47 : AIR 2011 SC 686.
 ● According to the in-laws of the appellant they had given sufficient amount of dowry
during to the appellant but the parents of the appellant remained dissatisfied. And
almost after 2 months of marriage they started pressurizing the deceased to bring
more valuable items for them.
● Also, after the demise of father of the deceased, her in-laws started maltreating her
and six months prior to the incident the there had been a quarrel between the husband
and wife.

● Furthermore, 10 days prior to the incident the accused made a demand of Rs.50,000/-
stating that her late father had left enough money for her.

● Unfortunately on 30th May 1988, the deceased committed suicide and was found
lying in the house with blood oozing from her nose.

● Thereafter, a FIR was logged against the accused for being responsible for the death
of her wife under section 306 of IPC along with section 304-B of IPC which was
ultimately framed by the court.

CASE ANALYSIS

The trail court held that prima facie dowry seemed to be the reason of which the decease
committed suicide and further held that the ingredients of section 304-B IPC were satisfied
on the presumptions raised under section 113-B of the Evidence Act with regard to dowry
deaths. So accordingly convicted the accused for an offence punishable under section 304-B
IPC.

Against the aforementioned conviction the appellant and his parents filed an appeal before
the Punjab and Haryana High Court and concluded that the deceased had not committed
suicide on account of demands for dowry but due to harassment caused by the husband, in
particular. On scrutiny of the entire evidence that the harassment by the appellant had
compounded the acute depression from which the deceased was suffering after the death of
her father. The deceased had committed suicide drinking by Organo Phosphorus poison. The
conviction of the appellant was converted from one under section 304-B IPC to section 306
IPC.

The accused then made an appeal to the Supreme Court.

JUDGEMENT

There has been no failure of justice in the conviction of the appellant under section 306 IPC
by the High Court therefore, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

PUNISHMENTS

SECTION 305
Section 305 of the IPC, i.e., abetment of suicide of a minor or insane person has three main
ingredients,
1. The person should have committed suicide as a direct result of the acts or ommission
to act on the part of the accused.
2. The accused should have abetted to the suicide of the minor or person with insanity.
3. In case of a minor, there should be a clear intention to commit suicide.

If these ingredients are satisfied, then the accused will be punished with death or
imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

SECTION 306- ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

Section 306 of the IPC, i.e., abetment to suicide has three main ingredients,
1. The person committed suicide as a direct result of the acts or ommission to act on the
part of the accused.
2. The accused should have abetted to the suicide of the victim, as defined in section 107
of the IPC.
3. There should be clear intent to commit suicide.

If these ingredients are satisfied, then the accused shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

CONCLUSION
In today’s society people face many hardships relating to their homes, their families and their
workplaces, and a few people, who are unable to deal with such pressures tends to end up
their life and thus, suicides are becoming very common. Moreover along with the increase in
the number of suicide cases, there has also been a steady rise in the cases of abetment of
suicide, be it a case of abetment by instigating or by aiding the victim in committing the
suicide. The accused can easily defeat the penal provisions dealing with such offense as the
ambit of the provision is limited to three categories, only. Thus, there is an alarming need to
amend the provisions dealing with the offense of abetment, in such a way that the criminals
are not able to bypass the legislations and mend the cases suiting their own desires and escape
the punishments. Abetment to suicide is made punishable in most of the countries and suicide
is not a personal choice until influenced by other individuals and hence the stringent law
threatens the society and controls the commission of offenses.

By Saurav Vinod and Preema Safi, Content Board, All India Legal Forum