NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that harassment alone cannot justify convicting someone for abetment of suicide, citing the necessity of clear evidence demonstrating intent to incite the act.
The verdict came while the court was hearing an appeal challenging the Gujarat high court’s decision to uphold charges against a woman’s husband and in-laws in connection with her alleged harassment and subsequent suicide.
The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P B Varale, said that a clear evidence of intent—direct or indirect—to provoke or aid in a suicide is needed to prove that the accused is guilty.
“For a conviction, 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 noted in its December 10 ruling.
For a conviction, the presence of mens rea—a deliberate intent to abet the act—is crucial, the court clarified.
The bench highlighted that the prosecution must provide evidence of active or direct actions by the accused that drove the deceased to take their 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 case under scrutiny was initiated in 2021, with charges related to abetment of suicide and cruelty towards a married woman. The deceased woman had been married since 2009 but reportedly faced physical and mental harassment, allegedly due to the couple’s inability to have children during the initial years of marriage. Her father filed a FIR in 2021 following her suicide, leading to charges against her husband and in-laws. Both the sessions court and the Gujarat high court had upheld the charges.
The apex court, however, discharged the accused under Section 306, noting the absence of direct or indirect incitement leading to the suicide. The bench reasoned that the woman’s death, occurring 12 years into her marriage, lacked concrete evidence linking her harassment to her decision to end her life.
The court pointed out that while the lack of prior complaints during the 12 years of marriage does not rule out instances of cruelty, it does raise doubts about the alleged harassment’s connection to the suicide.
Despite discharging the accused under sections related to abetment to suicide, the bench upheld the charges under subjecting a married woman to cruelty, acknowledging the alleged cruelty and harassment. It directed that the trial for these charges should continue.
The court’s observations come against the backdrop of a recent case involving the suicide of 34-year-old tech professional Atul Subhash.
Subhash, before his death, had accused his estranged wife, Nikita Singhania, and her family of harassment. A case of abetment of suicide was subsequently filed against Singhania, her mother, brother and her uncle.