The Indian Penal Code, 1860 makes abetment of suicide a punishable offence. Section 306 of the IPC prescribes either a jail term of up to ten years or a fine or both.
“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Abetment of suicide is a serious offence that is tried in a Sessions court and is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.
A cognizable offence is one in which a police officer can make an arrest without a warrant from a court. A non-bailable offence means bail is granted to the accused at the discretion of the court, and not as a matter of right.
A non-compoundable offence is one in which the case cannot be withdrawn by the
complainant even when the complainant and the accused have reached a compromise. The court cannot allow withdrawal of a case involving a non-compoundable offence, and every
such complaint is necessarily followed by a trial where evidence is held against the accused.
There are two primary ingredients of the crime of abetment of suicide. First is a suicidal death. The second ingredient is the intention of the accused to abet such suicide.
Legally, whether a death is a suicide or not is a determination of a fact, which means
evidence has to be evaluated to pronounce that death is a suicide. In common parlance, the word suicide is liberally attributed to every case of self-destruction, but suicide is never presumed. A determination of suicide is made when the deceased person is understood to
have known the probable consequence of what the self-harm is about to do to the person and yet, does so intentionally.
Once such a determination is made, then the intention of the person accused of abetment of suicide is looked into.
The intention is discerned from acts of the accused in proving any crime. Multiple rulings of the Supreme Court, including a 2002 ruling in the case of ‘Sanjay Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh’, have held that a comment or a statement uttered in haste, anger would not amount to abetment of suicide.
In a recent 2017 ruling, the apex court also said that instigation, involvement of the accused must be connected strongly and any remoteness in these features would be insufficient to charge the accused with the offence.
Additionally, if the deceased person is found to be very sensitive compared to a reasonable person, the court has said that the charge of abetment to suicide would weaken.
1. Ms. Jan Levinsson, resident of Kochi, is charged & arrested for the offence of Sedition, which is a non-bailable offence under Indian Law. She has applied for bail for the same. Can the Court grant bail to her?
(a) No. Since Sedition is a non-bailable offence, the Court cannot grant bail to the accused.
(b) No. Since Sedition is such a serious offence against the interests of the Nation, the Court cannot grant bail to such an accused.
(c) Yes. Granting of bail is upon the discretion of the court, but not guaranteed as a right to the accused.
(d) None of the above
2. Sona and Aby have been best friends since childhood. They go to the same school, come back home together, play together and have been inseparable since a very young age. However, one day, they had a huge fight and in the spur of the moment, Sona said that she hates Aby and hoped that he would kill himself. Aby was heartbroken at this and killed himself in grief. Will Sona be held liable for abetment to suicide?
(a) Yes. Since Sona’s words had a direct effect on Aby’s decision to commit suicide, she will be held liable.
(b) No. Since Sona said the words in haste, it cannot be said that Sona had the intention to cause Aby’s suicide.
(c) Yes. Sona was Aby’s best friend since childhood and should have known better about the effects her words might have on Aby.
(d) None of the above
3. In the above scenario, let us suppose that a case has been filed against Sona based on the Complaint made by Aby’s parents. However, they later decide to forgive Sona considering the friendship between Sona and their son. They therefore want to withdraw the case. Will it be possible for the parents to do the same?
(a) Yes. Since the complaint was made by them, they have all the right to withdraw them at a
later stage.
(b) Yes. Considering the special circumstances regarding Aby and Sona’s friendship, the Court will allow the parents to withdraw the complaint.
(c) No. The law does not allow withdrawing such complaints regarding abetment to suicide.
(d) Both (a) & (b)
4. In the above case, it was found that Aby was generally of a sensitive nature and would get hurt even in the most trivial matters. Would this new fact result in Sona’s acquittal?
(a) Yes. If the deceased person is found to be very sensitive compared to a reasonable person, the Court will never hold a person guilty for abetment to suicide.
(b) No. The sensitivity of the deceased is a factor that can help Sona’s case but it is not a guarantee for her acquittal.
(c) No. Sona ought to have been more careful considering Aby’s sensitive nature.
(d) None of the above
5. As per the passage, which of these Courts is empowered to try a case of Abetment to Suicide?
(a) Judicial First Class Magistrate
(b) Judicial Second Class Magistrate
(c) Chief Judicial Magistrate
(d) Sessions Judge
Answers :
1. C
2. B
3. C
4. B
5. D
