Abetment of suicide — latent criminal risk in competitive and hierarchical environments
Tags: Law, India, Criminal Justice, Crime, Legal

Abetment of suicide

The Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) punishes the person who abets (see below) the commission of suicide by another with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine, for the criminal offence of abetment of suicide[1].

Abetment[2] includes instigation of any person to do a thing; or engaging with one or more other person(s) in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or the intentional aiding, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Instigation has been held[3] to mean to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything.

Suicide note and criminal complaint/FIR

A suicide note left behind by the deceased is relevant and admissible evidence[4] against the alleged abettor, if named or identifiable therein.

A criminal complaint or FIR (first information report)[5] registered for the alleged offence empowers the initiation of an investigation and criminal proceedings in consequence thereof against an alleged abettor without need for prior judicial permission, whether or not a suicide note has been left behind.

Defence

To lawfully prosecute the alleged abettor of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts (active role and intention) of the abettor, proximate in time, instigating or aiding the commission of suicide[6].

Unlike the positive acts/omissions which constitute the actus reus of the offence, the burden on the prosecution of establishing mens rea or the criminal intent of the abettor may be a much harder proposition, as harassment, insulting or abusive behavior and other such acts, by itself, will not constitute an abetment of suicide.[7]

Quashing the complaint/FIR

Abetment of suicide is a serious criminal offence, non-bailable and non-compoundable, potentially with a significant imprisonment term on conviction. Whilst a suicide note, criminal complaint or FIR may not be enough to warrant a conviction without more, they may still subject the accused or alleged abettor to uncertain criminal proceedings of indefinite length, justify denial of bail and heighten the risk of conviction.

Recourse to the inherent powers[8] of the jurisdictional High Court may be available in some circumstances to quash the FIR etc. to lawfully avoid the above uncertainty and risk, especially where the allegations made therein against the alleged abettor are insufficient in law to warrant a continuation of such proceedings, as held recently by the Supreme Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.[9]

The risk of being accused of abetting the suicide of a deceased person is omnipresent and inherent in a competitive, adversarial and hierarchical environment or social structure, such as the workplace or marital home. The allegation also carries a stigma and pre-judgement of guilt. Further, many acts or omissions, otherwise lacking the necessary criminal intent, can easily be given a criminal hue by the deceased through a suicide note, which may record a mistaken belief or retributive intent, or by the complainant, to initiate criminal proceedings and subject the accused to the adverse consequences or risks that follow.

Identifying such risks beforehand and devising strategies to remove or mitigate the same is therefore prudent. If subject to such allegations or criminal proceedings, immediate analysis of the suicide note (if any) and/or the complaint/FIR registered would be the next strategic step to set-up an appropriate legal defence and seek relief from a judicial forum.

References

[1] section 306 IPC

[2] section 107 IPC

[3] Kishori Lal v. State of MP (2007) 10 SCC 797

[4] section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act 1872

[5] section 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

[6] Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707

[7] M Arjunan v. State (represented by its Inspector of Police) (2019) 3 SCC 315

[8] section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

[9] Criminal Appeal №742–744 of 2020, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 27 November 2020