Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that without a proximate act, a conviction for abetment to suicide cannot be sustained, as it acquitted a woman, her husband, and two others in a case concerning the abetment to suicide of a man in 2009, after allegedly trapping him in a love scandal and blackmailing him to extort money.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan did not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellants—Geetaben, Patel Babubhai Manohardas, and others—proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide.

The court noted that the delayed and controversial circumstances under which the suicide note surfaced made it highly suspect.

"Even if we take the suicide note as correct and genuine... No act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants," the bench said.

Four appellants were held guilty and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 10,000 each by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on May 12, 2011, under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC. The Gujarat High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

According to the complainant, Jayabalen, her husband Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai was trapped by Geetaben, a cleaning worker in his office. She, along with her husband, mother, and a relative, obtained various photographs and videos of him with her in a compromising position. They blackmailed him for money and even took away signed cheques, a passbook, and jewellery belonging to her daughter, forcing her husband to indulge in misappropriation at his office as well.

After hearing the counsel for the appellants and the state, the bench said, "Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence."

Referring to Amudha Vs State (2024), the bench said the court held that there has to be an act of incitement on the part of the accused proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.

Citing Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh (2001), the bench said the court held that to ‘instigate’ means to goad, urge, provoke, incite, or encourage to do ‘an act’. “To satisfy the requirement of ‘instigation’, it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence” the court said.

In this case, the bench noted that the incident had taken place on April 25, 2009, but the FIR was lodged against the accused on May 14, 2009, upon the recovery of the suicide note.

Having gone through the evidence, the bench said, "Though delay in lodging of first information is not always fatal but considering the fact that in this case, the delay is of 20 days which has remained unexplained, it would have a material bearing on the prosecution case."

The court also found that there were significant inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence. In fact, when the panchnama was drawn on April 25, 2009, no note was found on the body of the deceased. However, the wife of the deceased claimed that from the time of death till the lodging of the complaint, the suicide note was with the elder brother of the deceased.

"This again cast serious aspersions about the credibility of the suicide note," the bench said.

The court found that the police did not recover any jewellery (ornaments), signed cheques, cheque book, or passbook of the deceased.

"In such circumstances, the very sub-stratum of the prosecution case that the accused persons were making illegal gain by blackmailing the deceased falls flat," the bench said.

The court also noted that there was no recovery of any trace of the poison consumed by the deceased at the place of occurrence. No bottle or container of such poison was recovered from the residence of the deceased. Moreover, the prosecution could not place before the court any material as to wherefrom the deceased had procured the poison.

In Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs State of Karnataka (2024), the bench pointed out that the top court opined that in a case of death due to consumption or administering of poison, be it homicidal or suicidal, recovery of the trace of such poison is crucial.

In this case, the court also noticed that the suicide note was sent for forensic examination and the handwriting was found to be of the deceased. However, the prosecution did not examine the handwriting expert as an expert witness, and there was no record that the accused had admitted the genuineness of the report.

In the case of Murari Lal versus State of M.P. (1980), the bench pointed out that the court opined that having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of handwriting identification, the court’s approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. In an appropriate case, corroboration may be sought. Where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted.

When the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the said expert, the bench said, relying upon Keshav Dutt versus State of Haryana (2010).

The court thus finally allowed the appeal and set aside the high court's judgment of December 17, 2013, and the trial court's decision of May 12, 2011.

Case Title: Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors Vs State of Gujarat