Instigation Requires Reasonable Certainty to Incite the Consequence: Delhi High Court in Suicide Case

High Court Quashes Charges Against Manoj Kumar, Citing Lack of Direct Provocation and Temporal Gap in Alleged Threat.

The Delhi High Court has quashed charges against Manoj Kumar under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the alleged abetment of suicide. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge, particularly emphasizing the absence of direct or indirect incitement by the petitioner. The judgment, delivered by Justice Navin Chawla, scrutinized the circumstances surrounding the deceased's death and the purported suicide note, ultimately concluding that the elements required to sustain the charge were not met.

The case originated from a tragic incident on July 22, 2020, when a PCR call reported that a young man had committed suicide by hanging himself. The deceased's mother, Smt. Beena, discovered her son's body upon returning home and immediately sought help from neighbors to bring him down and rush him to BJRM Hospital, where he was declared dead.

At the scene, the police recovered a suicide note, a ledger, and a chunni used in the hanging. The suicide note alleged that the deceased had lent Rs. 60,000 to Manoj Kumar before the Covid-19 pandemic and faced severe financial difficulties during the lockdown. The note further claimed that Kumar had refused to repay the loan and threatened the deceased, contributing to his decision to end his life.

The High Court extensively reviewed the contents of the suicide note and other evidence. The note, while attributing the deceased's financial distress to Kumar's refusal to repay the loan, did not contain any explicit or implicit incitement or encouragement to commit suicide. The court noted, "Apart from the deceased blaming the petitioner for his decision to commit suicide, there is not even a whisper of the petitioner ever instigating him or even hinting at him to commit suicide. Mere refusal to repay the loan cannot make the petitioner guilty of 'abetment of suicide' under Section 306 of the IPC".

Justice Navin Chawla referred to several precedents to clarify the legal standards for abetment under Section 306 IPC. The court highlighted the necessity of proving an accused's instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in the commission of suicide. In the absence of such elements, mere financial disputes or harsh words, especially if uttered in the heat of the moment, do not meet the threshold for abetment.

The court emphasized that instigation requires a "reasonable certainty to incite the consequence" and that actions or words must be shown to have provoked the deceased to take the drastic step. In this case, the temporal gap between the alleged threat and the suicide further weakened the prosecution's case.

The Delhi High Court's judgment underscores the judiciary's stringent requirements for upholding charges of abetment to suicide. By discharging Manoj Kumar, the court reaffirmed that allegations must be substantiated by clear evidence of incitement or intentional aid. This ruling is expected to influence future cases, emphasizing the need for robust proof when attributing liability in sensitive situations involving suicide.

Date of Decision: July 1, 2024