Introduction
In an important ruling, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nipun Aneja & Others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh¹ has clarified the conditions under which superiors in an organization can be held liable for the abetment of a subordinate’s suicide. A Bench of Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra noted that the police and the Courts should avoid unnecessary prosecution in cases of abetment of suicide which are stemming from the workplace. This ruling has tightened the law as to how a case of abetment to suicide can be made out against an individual especially in the workplace.

The Hon’ble Apex Court’s analysis was much needed in the present case given that the current employment landscape, where the hustle culture especially under the glare of social media is an extremely grey area to deal with.

Facts of the Case
The Deceased was an employee of Hindustan Lever Limited who had worked with the said company for over 23 years. On 3rd November, 2006, the Deceased committed suicide in his hotel room in Lucknow. The very next, his brother filed a First Information Report (FIR) regarding the suicide. According to the FIR, the senior officers of the said company had compelled and harassed the Deceased to opt for the company’s Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The two statements of the witnesses revealed that that the present Appellants in their capacity as high ranking officers of Hindustan Lever Limited had convened a meeting in Hotel Amber with the employees of the said company serving as salesmen. On the next day that is on 03.11.2006, the meeting as alleged was convened only to harass those salesmen who were not ready to opt for VRS. In this meeting as alleged some of the salesmen including the Deceased were issued letter to undertake the work of merchandising. Again, as alleged, this was done by way of punishment for refusing to voluntarily retire. On the basis of the said statements, the police thought fit to file chargesheet against the Appellants.

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in March 2017 after reviewing the Appellants’ plea to quash the case observed that the Deceased committed suicide on account of instigation in the form of harassment and humiliation at the end of the Appellants. The Hon’ble High Court declined to quash the proceedings and noted that there was a ‘direct link’ between the meeting where the Deceased felt “humiliated and threatened” and his subsequent suicide.

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
If any person abets, entices or compels someone to commit suicide, then they shall be penalised under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for abetment of suicide. A person abetting, enticing or compelling someone to commit an offence is known as an ‘abettor’ as per Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Abetment of suicide is referred to as the mental process of instigating, encouraging or assisting someone in committing suicide. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is reproduced hereinunder:

306. Abetment of suicide.-
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The abetment is the core component of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 however, Section 306 nowhere defines what is meant by ‘abets’ therefore the definition of ‘abetment’ under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is material. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is reproduced hereinunder:

107. Abetment of a thing.-
A person abets the doing of a thing, who-(First)-Instigates any person to do that thing; or(Secondly)- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or(Thirdly)- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

An offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) is cognizable, Non - Bailable, Non - Compoundable and triable by the Hon’ble Sessions Court.

The Assessment of Liability
The Hon’ble Bench observed that the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the Deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the Accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the Deceased the Hon’ble Bench observed that such incitement to commit suicide may arise from two broad categories. One, where the Deceased had sentimental ties or physical relations with the Accused and the Second, where the Deceased had relations with the Accused in their official capacity. The Hon’ble Bench emphasised that the former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.

The Hon’ble Apex Court opined that the test to determine culpability under the provision is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the Accused intended the consequences of the act i.e., suicide. The Hon’ble Bench recognised that family members of a person who has committed suicide may decide to lodge a FIR but added that it is ultimately for the police and the Courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.

Allowing the present appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down illustrative, but not exhaustive parameters to check if it is an abetment case. The Hon’ble Bench was convinced that putting the Appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission of suicide by the Deceased will be nothing but abuse of process of law. The Hon’ble Bench opined that the Hon’ble High Court should have examined the present matter keeping in mind the following:

1. On the date of the meeting that is on 03.11.2006, did the Appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading the Deceased to see suicide as the only escape?
2. Are the Appellants accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the Deceased by making him feel worthless or undeserving of life leading him to commit suicide?
3. Is it a case of threatening the Deceased with dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that he believed that suicide was the only way out?
4. Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged the reputation of the Deceased and push him to commit suicide due to public humiliation and loss of dignity.

The Hon’ble Bench thereafter cautioned against the trend of taking allegations at their face value and opined those unnecessary prosecutions under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are the result of the inability on the part of the Courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide. The Hon’ble Bench said that the problem with abetment to suicide trials was that the Courts only look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. The Hon’ble Bench believed that such understanding on the part of the Courts is wrong and that it all depends on the nature of the offence and accusation.

Precedents mentioned by the Hon’ble Bench
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M Arjunan Vs. State², while explaining the necessary ingredients of Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in detail, observed that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the Accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the Accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the Accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, Accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In Ude Singh and Ors. Vs. state of Haryana³, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that proving abetment of suicide would depend on the facts of the individual case. The Hon’ble Court observed that there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide wherein the Accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other person except to omit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion
From the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it can be summarised that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of each and every case. That there is no direct rule or guideline laid down by any Courts to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which forced a person to commit suicide. In some cases, there may be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct link to the suicide. Therefore, it is necessary that inference has to be drawn from the circumstances which in fact made the said person feel totally frustrated which led him to commit suicide.

By - Soumya Kamat