“Whether mere refusal to marry attract the provision of Abetment of suicide?”

By -

      
The author of this blog is Shebin Saji,  4th year student studying at Manipal University Jaipur.  

Suicide is a major health problem that is present globally. The World Health Organisation statistics reveal that close to 800,000 people die due to suicide every year which is one person every forty seconds.[1]  In India alone, the situation is not glaring rather the National Crime Record Bureau data shows that the suicide rate for 2015 was 10.6 per 100,000 population.[2] A person may commit suicide due to several reasons like depression, mental illness, substance abuse and one of such reasons is abetment.The criminal law in India deals with the abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This section punishes an abettor who commissions a suicide and suicide of a person has been committed due to such reason. Section 306 cannot be read in isolation, that is why Section 107 is also read along with it as the latter provision defines abetment. Abetment may be caused by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding as provided under Section 107. This article answers the question of whether mere refusal to marry a person leads to abetment of suicide or not but before doing so we should know the meaning of the term ‘abetment’.

A two-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.[3] has defined abetment of a thing as specified u/s 107 of the IPC as follows:
“It held that offense of abetment defined under Section 107 IPC is a separate and distinct offense provided in IPC. A person abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word 'instigate' literally means to provoke, incite, urge on, or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offense. 'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offense abetted. Therefore, the offense for abetment of which a person is charged with abetment is normally linked with the proven offense.”

The basic ingredients of abetment of suicide are two, namely, suicidal death and abetment thereof.[4] It is thus required that there must exist a nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. To establish the offense of abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to instigate or aid the commission of suicide is necessary. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment.[5]
The Supreme Court in its judgment has laid down the essentials for abetment and by applying that test we can get an answer to the question we have posted ourselves with. The first essential can be proved easily by looking at the facts on record. However, proving the existence of abetment is the crux of the matter. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. The conviction of the accused can never be made unless there is an act done by him leading to the investigation or aiding in committing suicide. The court has to also see whether there exists any clear mens rea on part of the accused.[6] If not then the case filed under Section 306 falls flat. Mere refusal to marry won’t amount to abetment if the evidence collected fails to prove a nexus between the refusal made and the conduct or behavior of the accused which led to the suicide of the victim.

The High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay and Chattisgarh have decided on a similar issue (a refusal to marry) and held a common consensus. There is a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Praveen Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and another[7] which decided the following:
“The deceased had engaged the accused but the marriage could not take place. The girl became depressed and consumed poison on the same day and expired. In these backdrops, Court held that mere refusal to marry will not constitute an offense under Section 306 IPC.”
A Single Judge of Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Anil Methaji Gedam v. The State of Maharashtra[8] has observed that refusal to perform marriage does not amount to abetment. It is the choice of every person to marry a particular person or not. No one can force any person to perform a matrimonial ceremony with a particular person. It shows that the deceased was hypersensitive. Thus, the High Court held that the accused cannot be punished under Section 306 IPC.

The Chhattisgarh High Court in Kewal Krishnakant Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh[9] held:
“Section 306 IPC is not attracted, discussed material on record and observed that applicant and deceased was unmarried and prior to the incident, for the last two years, applicant had been visiting the house of the deceased. He had also made a promise to deceased and her family members that he will marry her.  Later, on the date of the incident, accused telephonically refused to marry the deceased by saying that she belongs to a poor family and he is a doctor. Besides this, there was no material available against accused. There was nothing found to establish that accused continuously tortured or harassed deceased, physically or mentally. He refused to marry deceased on a telephonic call itself. Making refusal by accused to deceased cannot be said to be an instigation on the part of accused. Court observed that it is the normal practice of society that before finalization of marriage, parties visit many families and even after taking talks for a long period, refusal of marriage takes place and in these circumstances, if, on the refusal of marriage, any girl or boy commits suicide, it will generate a huge number of litigations of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.  It held that only on refusal of marriage, if a girl or boy commits suicide, that cannot be a case of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.”
Thus, acts attributed to the accused are repeatedly asking the deceased to marry him. It would not indicate that the accused intended that the deceased should commit suicide.[10] Although, the courts take caution and look at all facts and shreds to evidence before concluding that mere refusal to marry a person would not attract the offense of abetment of suicide under IPC.

[2] http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/ADSI/ADSI2015/adsi-2015-full-report.pdf. Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India 2015, National Crimes Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs. Last accessed on 26.07.2019 at 17:11 p.m.
[3] (2007) 10 SCC 797 (para 6)
[4] Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433
[5] Id.
[6] M. Mohan v. State (2011) 3 SCC 626
[7] S.B.Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2450 of 2014
[8] Criminal Revision Application (Rev) No.198 of 2016
[9] Criminal Revision No.111 of 2018
[10] Ramdas Ajinath Bhandwalkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 CrLj 2497 (Bom.)

Comments

Post a Comment