Mere harassment not sufficient to find accused guilty of abetting suicide: SC
New Delhi (PTI): Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold someone guilty of the offence of abetting suicide, and there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect incitement, the Supreme Court has said.
The observations came from a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P B Varale while delivering a verdict on an appeal challenging a Gujarat High Court order refusing to discharge a woman's husband and her in-laws for allegedly harassing her and driving her to suicide.
The observations in the judgement gain significance in the wake of the recent suicidal death case of 34-year-old techie Atul Subhash. He alleged harassment at the hands of his estranged wife and her family.
A case of abetment of suicide was registered against his wife Nikita Singhania, her mother Nisha, father Anurag and uncle Sushil.
The top court's observations may come to the aide of Nisha and her family members.
Dealing with the plea challenging the high court order, the apex court noted a case was registered in 2021 for the alleged offences including under Sections 498-A (subjecting a married woman to cruelty) and 306 of the IPC which deals with the offence of abetment of suicide and prescribes a maximum jail term of 10 years and fine.
"For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea - the intention to abet the act - is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide," the bench said in its December 10 judgement.
It said the prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his or her own life.
The bench said the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred and it must be evident and explicitly discernible.
"Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide," it said.
The bench discharged the three men from the charge under Section 306, even though it upheld the charge against the appellants under Section 498-A of the IPC.
It noted that an FIR was registered by the woman's father against her husband and two in-laws for the alleged offences including under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC.
The bench noted the woman got married in 2009 and for the first five years of the wedlock, no child was born to the couple due to which she was allegedly subjected to physical and mental harassment.
It further noted that in April, 2021, the woman's father received information that she had died by suicide.
The high court had upheld the sessions court's order to frame charges under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC against them.
The apex court said Section 306 of the IPC penalises those who abet the act of suicide by another.
"For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased," it said.
The bench said to bring a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it was necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide.
"Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the court must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life," it said.
The top court said in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide.
"Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide," it said.
The apex court said in this case it prima facie appeared that neither did the appellants have the requisite mens rea nor did they commit any positive or a direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide.
The bench said the woman died by suicide 12 years into the marriage.
"The appellants' argument that the deceased had not made a single complaint for cruelty or harassment against the appellants in the twelve years of marriage cannot be sustained. Merely because she did not file any complaint for twelve years does not guarantee that there was no instance of cruelty or harassment," it said.
While partly allowing the appeal, the bench discharged the appellants under Section 306 of the IPC. It, however, upheld the charge under Section 498A and said the trial under this provision should proceed against them.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
BJD leaders demand action against MP Sasmit Patra for creating confusion over Waqf Bill voting
Bhubaneswar, Apr 5 (PTI): A section of senior BJD leaders on Saturday demanded strong action against Rajya Sabha MP and national spokesperson Sasmit Patra for "creating confusion" among lawmakers ahead of the voting on Waqf (Amendment) Bill in the upper house of Parliament.
Patra, also the leader of the BJD in Rajya Sabha, is in the eye of the storm after revealing that he had voted in favour of the contentious Bill.
After the BJD announced it would oppose the Bill, and even party MP Muzibulla Khan spoke against it in Rajya Sabha on April 3, Patra put out a post on X before voting, stating that party MPs could vote "as per their conscience" and that there was no whip issued to them.
This led to confusion among the lawmakers, and many senior leaders have raised questions about whether Patra could change the decision of Naveen Patnaik, who apart from being the BJD president, was also chairman of the parliamentary party.
"I abstained from voting due to confusion... the party had earlier decided to oppose the Bill and at the last moment, we were asked to vote as per our conscience," another Rajya Sabha MP, Debasish Samantray, said.
He, however, chose not to blame Patra.
"Sasmit Patra is not the villain here. He does not take decisions, he merely follows instructions. The real power lies elsewhere, with the 'chief advisor'," Samantray told reporters, indicating a close aide of Patnaik.
He refused to divulge the name of the "chief advisor" and said, "Everybody knows who he is".
The BJD MP also hinted at a "big deal" between the "chief advisor" and the BJP.
"There has been a big deal. The chief advisor has made some kind of arrangement with the BJP. A bureaucrat who has recently taken voluntary retirement may be part of this deal. You all know who has recently taken VRS. I leave it to your understanding," Samantray said.
Senior Odisha cadre IAS officer Sujata R Karthikeyan, the wife of BJD president Naveen Patnaik's former close aide V K Pandian, recently took voluntary retirement from government service.
Karthikeyan, a 2000-batch Odisha cadre officer, was serving as the special secretary in Odisha's finance department.
At least two senior BJD leaders -- Prafulla Samal and Pratap Jena -- have written letters to Patnaik demanding action against Patra for "going against the party stand by voting in support of Waqf Bill".
Also, Ganeswar Behera, the sitting MLA of Muslim-dominated Kendrapara assembly segment, also criticised Patra, questioning, "Who gave Patra the authority to change the party president's decision?"
"He has committed a mistake for which he is liable to action. Only BJD president has the authority to change the decision of the parliamentary party and nobody else," he told reporters, adding that this amounts to gross indiscipline.
Both Samal and Jena, in their letters to Patnaik, stated that the BJD continues to fight for the socio-economic development of minority communities including Muslims.
"However, instead of winning the trust of the minority communities, such action of Patra has caused damage to the party's image. Therefore, I urge you to take action as deemed fit," Samal said.
Senior BJD leader and former minister Pratap Jena expressed displeasure over Patra's action and termed the move "anti-party" and "shocking".
"Patra's recent social media posts reflect a mindset that contradicts the BJD's ideological position," Jena said.
Jena also raised suspicion over Patra's behaviour and demanded a thorough inquiry into the matter.
"We must investigate who is behind this conspiracy and people responsible for this should be held accountable," he said, demanding disciplinary action against Patra.
BJD MLA and former minister Badri Narayan Patra was more critical: "This situation was a result of a deliberate mischief. How could Sasmit Patra dare to defy the BJD president's decision and announce on his own X platform regarding the change of stand? He has put the entire party in a fix and this needs action."
A senior BJD leader, on condition of anonymity, said party leaders representing Muslim-dominated constituencies are worried following the party's change of stand on the Waqf Bill.
"The Muslims, who constitute over 2.17 per cent of the state's population, have all along supported the BJD. Now, they may change their political affiliation to the Congress. The present situation has given a wrong message to the Muslim community," he said.
Though a section of senior BJD leaders met Patnaik and held discussions on the matter on Friday, the BJD president was yet to give any remark on the prevailing political situation.
Patra could not be contacted as he was on a tour to Tashkent from April 5 to 9 as part of the delegation of the 150th Assembly of Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU).
Reacting to the developments, Odisha BJP spokesperson Anil Biswal said, "The recent developments indicate that Patnaik has lost control over his party MPs. He could not impose a whip on them because he does not have command of the party."
On allegations about a "deal" between BJD and BJP over the Waqf Bill, Samal said, "We do not do deals. Nation is first for us. People worried about the rights of poor Muslims have supported the Bill. The seven BJD MPs have been divided into three categories: one who supported the Bill, those who opposed it and one who abstained from voting. There is no unanimity in the BJD."
