Criminal intent and active proximate role required for conviction under abetment to suicide , expounds HC, Read More

07 May 2024

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court opined that to bring a case within the purview of ‘abetment to suicide’ under Section 306 IPC, there must be a commission of suicide and in the commission of said offence, the person who is alleged to have ‘abetted’ the commission of suicide must have played an active role by instigation or engage with one or another person in any conspiracy for doing that thing or intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission.

It was expounded that there must be a criminal intent (mens rea) when carrying abetment which could be by way of encouragement, intentional incitement in the form of verbal threats, provocation, persuading, commanding or encouraging someone to commit suicide through acts or omissions. There has to be some proximate active role in the act of instigation or aiding or doing or omitting to act.

Brief Facts:

The present appeal has been filed against the judgement and order vide which the Appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Contentions of the Appellant:

It was argued that the investigation was conducted in a biased manner. Further, that there were contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses examined before the Learned Trial Court.

Contentions of the Respondent:

It was argued that the Appellant aided the deceased by handing over a lighter despite knowing her intention to commit suicide.

Observations of the Court:

It was observed that people tend to behave differently in similar situations and an act of suicide may be resorted to due to hypersensitivity of an individual to discord and differences which happen in day-to-day life or other myriad of reasons.

The Bench opined that to bring a case within the purview of ‘abetment to suicide’ under Section 306 IPC, there must be a commission of suicide and in the commission of said offence, the person who is alleged to have ‘abetted’ the commission of suicide must have played an active role by instigation or engage with one or another person in any conspiracy for doing that thing or intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission.

In the present case, abetment by Appellant was alleged by way of ‘aiding’. Further, the Appellant was not a silent spectator but he immediately intervened to put down the flames.

Regarding witness testimony, the Court held that in criminal prosecution when a witness is cross- examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by the party calling him, the evidence cannot be treated to be completely washed off the record. It needs to be analysed whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradictions, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony before the Court. If the credit of witness is not completely shaken as a whole, the reliable part of the testimony can be accepted with due caution and care in the light of other evidence on record, which the Court finds it to be creditworthy and can be acted upon. Only in case the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned and witness stands totally discredited, the evidence of such witness should be discarded in toto.

The present case was not supported by any of the independent witnesses. Further, intentional aiding and complicity which are the gist of the offence of abetment were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The decision of the Court:

Accordingly, the Bench set aside the judgement and order of the Trial Court and acquitted the Appellant.

Case Title: Zulfikar @Bobby v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case No.: CRL.A.424/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

Advocates for Appellant: Advs. Mr. Gautam Khazanchi and Mr. Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate for Respondent: Adv Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya