“Merely because there was some dispute between the parties (husband and wife) by itself would not establish the act of abetment. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any direct link between the act of appellant and commission of suicide by the deceased,” a bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar said, allowing the appeal of accused Ravindra Singh.
However, interpreting Section 306 of the IPC, the top court said, “A person who abets the commission of suicide must firstly, instigate any person to do that thing, i.e. instigate to commit suicide; or secondly, engages with one or more other person(s) in a conspiracy for doing that thing and an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance to such conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing i.e. any act or illegal omission done towards conspiracy to abet the commission of suicide; or thirdly, if such person intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing, i.e. does any act of illegal omission to aid the act of committing suicide.”
In its February 13 order, the bench said an offence of abetment (of suicide) involves mens rea to instigate or intentionally aid a person in doing a thing and it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasised that a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC cannot rest on strained relations alone and must be backed by clear, proximate evidence of instigation.
The top court set aside the conviction saying “nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any direct link between the act of the appellant (Singh) and commission of suicide by the deceased”.
