Supreme Court has noted that when courts fail to grasp and apply the correct legal principles in cases involving abetment of suicide, it results in unnecessary prosecutions. Supreme Court annulled the ongoing case in Lucknow involving three individuals accused of aiding in a suicide. A panel of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra acknowledged the emotions of the deceased person’s family who filed FIRs, but emphasized that it is the responsibility of the police and courts to ensure that the accused are not unfairly treated.
Supreme Court, in its October 3 order, stated that for a case to be considered under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code, it must involve the victim being directly encouraged or incited by the accused, resulting in no choice but to commit suicide. Supreme Court should use a test in these cases to determine if there is any indication that the accused intended the act of suicide, the bench emphasized.
As per Supreme Court, current trends indicate that courts are only determining the supposed intent behind a crime after a complete trial. The issue is that the courts only examine the act of suicide and nothing else. We disagree with the courts’ interpretation. “It all comes down to the type of crime and allegation,” it stated.
The bench also mentioned that the courts need to understand how to correctly apply the legal principles related to abetment of suicide to the evidence in the case. “It is when the courts fail to comprehend and implement the appropriate legal principles in cases of abetment of suicide that result in unwarranted prosecutions,” stated the source.
Supreme Court issued a ruling on a plea submitted by three defendants who opposed the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow branch March 2017 decision denying their request to dismiss the criminal charges against them.
It was mentioned that the individual who passed away had been employed by a private company and had been with the same company for 23 years. It was reported that the man committed suicide in a hotel room in Lucknow in November 2006, and his brother lodged a complaint with the local police. As per the FIR, the accused individuals, who held high positions in the organization, had organized a gathering with the company staff at a hotel where the victim and his coworkers were also in attendance.
The company was accused in the FIR of pressuring employees to take voluntary retirement and harassing those who refused. Supreme Court recognized that, based on the high court’s findings, the deceased’s death was determined to be a result of provocation through harassment and humiliation by the individuals involved.
Supreme Court noted that the high court’s entire approach in the case at hand might be considered incorrect. Supreme Court observed that prosecuting the appellants for abetment would simply be a misuse of the legal system. The appeal was granted and the high court’s order was overturned as it was believed that there was not a convincing case against the appellants.