Supreme Court criticises Allahabad High Court order on abetment of suicide

The Supreme Court on Thursday criticised the Allahabad High Court's interpretation of what constitutes the criminal offence of abetment of suicide [Nipun Aneja vs State of Uttar Pradesh]..A Division Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made the oral observation while setting a High Court order that upheld criminal proceedings against Hindustan Unilever officials under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)."(Allahabad) High Court has no idea what constitutes an offence under Section 306 IPC!" the Bench remarked today..The case involved allegations that Hindustan Unilever's recommendation for early retirement led to an employee's death by suicide. The High Court had ruled that this amounted to abetment of suicide. .(Allahabad) High Court has no idea what constitutes an offence under Section 306 IPC!Supreme Court.However, the Supreme Court observed that the company's actions cannot be construed as instigating the deceased to take their own life."Allowing criminal proceedings to continue under (Section) 306 will be misuse and abuse of process of law. Appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside, Proceedings pending in court ... set aside," the Supreme Court said while overturning the High Court order..Supreme Court in the judgment has held that "offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide.".The top court has further elaborated that as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. 1. where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused2. where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity.Supreme Court has lamented that over the course of time, the "trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial.""The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation," reads the judgment..Further the Justice JB Pardiwala led bench has stated that Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. "It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them," reads the judgment..Section 306 of the IPC punished the offence of suicide abetment. A similar provision is found in Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) which replaced the IPC with effect from July 1 this year. .Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta with Advocate Nikhil Jain appeared for the accused..[Read Judgment]