Revision as of 08:40, 13 June 2013

Abetment of suicide

Lovers’ tiff can’t be abetment of suicide: SC

‘Prosecution Must Prove Intent, Knowledge’

Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN

The Times of India

A boy proposes to a girl. She rejects it. Feeling humiliated, the boy commits suicide. Should she be prosecuted for abetment of suicide?

Actress Jiah Khan’s suicide has again brought to fore a question — what constitutes abetment of suicide? — which has been discussed extensively by the Supreme Court through the decades.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending to trigger a step as extreme as suicide can’t be said to be abetment of suicide.

The Supreme Court has also consistently clarified that to prosecute a person for abetment of suicide, prosecution has to prove that the accused had the intention and knowledge that a specific act on his part could trigger suicidal tendency in the victim.

Normal marital skirmishes or what the court put it as “normal wear and tear of marriage” could not be counted as a reason for abetment of suicide by a partner.

In that case — State of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73] — the SC had cautioned that the court should be very careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence for purpose of finding whether cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to commit suicide.

“If it appears to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty,” it had said.

Three years ago, the SC in S S Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan had said there had to be a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate the victim to take the step of taking her own life.

“Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.”

In its 2001 judgment (Ramesh Kumar vs Chhattisgarh), the court dealt with a classic case. After a quarrel, the husband told the wife — “you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like”.

The wife committed suicide and the husband faced abetment charges. The court quashed the charges and said: “The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

The Times of India View

The Pancholi decision on to abetment book Suraj of suicide charges has surprised even legal experts, given the way similar cases have failed to stick in courts. A relationship going awry and ending in death is tragic. But just because one person from that relationship has survived does not mean that he (or she) can be automatically assumed to be guilty of pushing the other person towards death. Cases like this are different from a regular criminal case and need much more careful and sensitive handling to pre-empt charges of haste and harassment.

The Jiah Khan suicide (2013)

Experts pick holes in Jiah suicide abetment case Vijay V Singh, Rebecca Samervel & Bharati Dubey, TNN | Jun 13, 2013

The Times of India

The Times of India’s view

On the face of it, this seems to be a case of a relationship gone terribly sour. The police are not here to impose morality; their job is to enforce the law. And by arresting (her boyfriend) Suraj Pancholi they seem to have confused their role. Unless they have specific evidence to show that Pancholi actively instigated Jiah's suicide, they have no business arresting the 22-year old or charging him with abetment to suicide.

The court should give him bail right away. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that a mere lovers' tiff cannot be sufficient to invoke such a serious charge. The apex court should also frame strong guidelines to ensure that such situations are not used by police as an excuse for harassment or as a money-making opportunity.

Lawyers’views

Lawyer Ameet Naik handled the Navin Nischol case in which the actor was acquitted despite his wife leaving behind a suicide note blaming him (in this case, legal experts are not even sure whether Jiah Khan's letter can be treated as a suicide note). "A mere letter is not reason enough to arrest him. In the Navin Nischol case, there was a suicide note but the prosecution was unable to establish real mens rea (intention) in abetment. There could be several other reasons for the suicide. Police needs to find if there is circumstantial evidence before making such arrests," Naik said.

Referring to the allegations of abuse, criminal lawyer Adhik Shirodkar questioned how they could be proved with the victim dead. "A suicide note helps police give direction to the probe and establish the cause of death. But it can't be the sole basis for arresting someone."

Many lawyers, who have worked on similar cases, called for guidelines to control police action in such cases. "This type of action may also lead to questions about the police's intentions in going after people without any real evidence," a criminal lawyer said.