Mere allegations of harassment not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide offence: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that for establishing an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there should be direct or indirect evidence to show that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit the act and a mere allegation of harassment won't amount to abetment of suicide [Vitthal Chaudhari vs State of Maharashtra].Single-judge Justice Anil Kilor in an order passed on March 23, 2022, declined to entertain an appeal challenging acquittal of two men by the sessions court in an abetment of suicide case. "In the cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act or incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely, on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which held for compel the person to commit suicide, for conviction under Section 306 is not sustainable," Justice Kilor held.The Court, therefore, dismissed a criminal appeal filed by one Vitthal Chaudhari challenging the judgment of a sessions court pronounced in May 2019 acquitting two men booked for abetting the suicide of his son, Sandeep.As per the prosecution case, Sandeep died by suicide on March 10, 2015 by jumping into a well. A note was found wrapped in a plastic bag in his pocket stating that he was ending his life due to continued harassment by Madan Chaudhari and Balaji Gaikwad. It was alleged that the duo didn't pay him ₹40,000 from his potluck fund and had also threatened to shut his medical store. .The trial court had in its judgment noted that there was no description of the manner in which the duo harassed the deceased. It refused to rely on the statements of the deceased's wife and uncle, who too named the two men on the ground that they had learnt from Sandeep about the harassment he was meted out to.Justice Kilor too agreed with the view of the sessions court stating that Sandeep's wife and uncle weren't a direct witness to the alleged harassment caused to him by the duo.Referring to various judgments, the judge noted that the question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused."If the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide," the Court said..Justice Kilor further observed that in such cases, since a delicate analysis of human behaviour is done, each such case needs to be examined on its own peculiar facts.Speaking about the suicide note, the judge highlighted that the same doesn't detail as to how the harassment was caused and that there was no evidence regarding the same, except the suicide note."In the said backdrop, even if, the oral evidence of witnesses is accepted in totality, nothing has been brought on record that the accused had by their acts or continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased Sandip was left with no option except to commit suicide. Moreover, nothing has been brought on record to show that the accused were instigating the deceased or intentionally aiding the deceased in committing the suicide," the judge said while dismissing the appeal..[Read Judgment]