1 week Ago By Tahini Bhushan
(Trigger Warning: Mention of suicide. If you feel suicidal or know someone in distress, please reach out to them with kindness. You can reach out to local emergency services, helplines, and mental health NGOs here .
) The myth of the 'Reasonable Man' begins to pervade our lives the moment we step into the realm of law. It often flusters us, not just as students but as practitioners, by demanding us to navigate through the abstract – what would a reasonable person do in each set of circumstances? This legal test forms the backbone of countless judgments, including those dealing with the abetment of suicide under Indian law. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalises the act of abetting another to take their own life.
This provision, steeped in complexity, requires a nuanced application of the reasonable person test to evaluate whether the actions or the words of the accused were sufficient to push another towards the tragic act of suicide. In the light of 34-year-old tech professional Atul Subhash's death by suicide – following which a case related to abetment of suicide was filed against his estranged wife, her mother, brother, and uncle – let's understand this concept that's crucial to interpreting the law and demystifying the interplay of intent, influence, and accountability in such cases. ADVERTISEMENT REMOVE AD Domestic Disputes and Abetment to Suicide Domestic disputes today extend beyond physical violence, often involving significant mental cruelty that can be just as damaging.
The complexity of such cases lies in the substance of the mental cruelty and its impact on the victim. This makes it more challenging for courts to apply the reasonable man test, as each case requires a nuanced understanding of how emotional and psychological distress influences a person's actions. Courts must carefully consider the unique circumstances and the psychological toll on the victim to determine whether the accused’s behaviour meets the threshold for criminal liability, particularly in cases of abetment of suicide.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report, marriage- and relationship-related concerns were identified as the third leading cause of death by suicide. This was one of the few causes where the number of suicide deaths among men was closely comparable to those among women. However, in cases related to dowry, suicide deaths among women were significantly higher than those among men.
This underscores the complex role of domestic issues, societal pressures, and mental health, particularly in the context of marriage. The legal interpretation of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC has evolved through judicial precedents, emphasising the necessity of proving incitement with clear and proximate acts. One significant judgment in this context is the Supreme Court's ruling in Mariano Anto Bruno & Another v The Inspector of Police .
In this case, the court highlighted the critical principles required to establish culpability under Section 306. The bench observed: “It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
” An earlier judgment of the apex court in Naresh Kumar Case (2022) elucidated on the aspect of Section 113A of the Evidence Act. The law provides a discretionary presumption of abetment of suicide when a woman dies by suicide within seven years of marriage – and there is evidence that her husband or his relatives subjected her to cruelty. This presumption is not automatic; it requires the prosecution to prove instances of cruelty or sustained harassment by the accused.
The court must evaluate all circumstances before deciding if the presumption applies. Unlike Section 113B, which mandates a presumption in cases of dowry deaths, Section 113A leaves the decision to the court’s discretion, emphasising the need for concrete evidence to link the accused’s actions to the suicide. Role of Intent in Suicide Cases The apex court delivered a crucial judgment in SLP(Crl.
) No.7957 of 2024 ironically on the same day that news broke of the Bengaluru techie’s death by suicide , who left behind an 80-minute video note and several pages explaining his reasons for taking his life. The timing of this case underscored the importance of the timing and nature of harassment in abetment cases.
The court emphasised that actions must be proximate to the time of the suicide to establish a connection. Harassment that occurred months or even years earlier may not suffice to meet this standard. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, the court reiterated a key legal principle: the presence of clear Mens Rea (the intent to abet the suicide) is essential.
In simple terms, mere harassment is insufficient to convict someone of abetting suicide. The prosecution must prove that the accused took active or direct actions that led the deceased to take their own life. The element of Mens Rea cannot be presumed or inferred; it must be clearly demonstrated through evidence.
Without clear intent to instigate or provoke the act, a conviction for abetment of suicide cannot stand. The decision reiterates the principle that the law demands a high degree of evidence for attributing criminal liability in the abetment of suicide cases. It seeks to prevent misuse of the legal framework while ensuring that genuine cases of abetment are appropriately addressed.
As such, courts must carefully assess the evidence to determine whether the accused's actions directly or indirectly incited or pressured the deceased into taking such an extreme step. However, in cases like that of Subhash, who left behind a written account of his reasons for his untimely demise, blaming his estranged wife, mother-in-law, and the family court judge, the parameters established in various judgments will be tested in specific cases like his. This highlights why each case must be approached with careful consideration, rather than dismissed simply because a direct link is missing.
The test in such cases is inherently subjective, requiring a thorough examination of the circumstances, actions, and intent involved. In my opinion, the crucial need to establish a clear causal link between the accused's actions and the act of suicide does serve as an important test, however it’s still subject to circumstances. The court's emphasis on evaluating whether the accused’s actions were sufficiently proximate in both time and intensity to drive the deceased to take their own life is a key takeaway.
Yet, it also serves as a reminder that the charge of abetment of suicide cannot be based on conjecture or generalised allegations. At the same time, the reasons provided in writing by a deceased person should not be dismissed as generalised either. While there is a certain clarity on the evidentiary requirements in such cases, the subjective nature of the test leaves room for potential misinterpretation.
This reinforces the need to strike a delicate balance between safeguarding individuals from unwarranted accusations and ensuring justice is delivered to victims of genuine acts of incitement. Each case requires careful evaluation to uphold both fairness and accountability. (Tahini Bhushan is partner at Tatvika Legal, a full-service law firm based out of Delhi-NCR.
The views expressed are the author’s own. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.
) (At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.) Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion Topics: Suicide abetment of suicide Suicide abetment.
