The court order comes amid a massive row over 34-year-old techie Atul Subhash’s death by suicide
New Delhi:
Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold someone guilty of abetment to suicide, the Supreme Court has said, adding that there must be evidence of direct or indirect incitement for conviction in such cases. The order comes amid a massive row over 34-year-old techie Atul Subhash’s death by suicide. In an 81-minute video and a 24-page note, Subhash accused his estranged wife Nikita Singhania and her family members of harassment and extortion. Based on a complaint by Atul’s family, Bengaluru police have registered an abetment to suicide case against Nikita and three others.
The Supreme Court’s order came while it was hearing a challenge against a Gujarat High Court order that refused relief to a man and his family members accused of abetting his wife’s suicide.
“For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, 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 said in its December 10 order.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale said the prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to die by suicide. In the Gujarat case, the court discharged the accused in the abetment to suicide case, but upheld the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with cruelty against a woman by her husband or his family members.
The bench said that the woman married in 2009 and the couple had no children for five years after the wedding. For this reason, she was allegedly harassed physically and mentally. In 2021, she died by suicide and her father accused her husband and in-laws of abetment and cruelty. The sessions court ordered the framing of charges against them under both counts and the high court upheld this.
The top court, however, said, “For a person to be charged under this section (306), the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased.”
“Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the court must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life,” it said.
“Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide,” the court added.
In this case, the court said, it prima facie appeared that the accused did not commit any direct act or instigate the act of suicide.
The Supreme Court, however, upheld the cruelty charge. “The appellants’ argument that the deceased had not made a single complaint for cruelty or harassment against the appellants in the 12 years of marriage cannot be sustained. Merely because she did not file any complaint for twelve years does not guarantee that there was no instance of cruelty or harassment,” it said, giving a go-ahead to the trial under this count.
The Supreme Court’s order in this case comes against the backdrop of a massive row surrounding Atul Subhash’s death by suicide. The 34-year-old has detailed in a 24-page note alleged remarks by his wife Nikita and her mother Nisha that drove him to the edge. Bengaluru Police have filed an abetment to suicide case against Nikita, her mother Nisha, brother Anurag and uncle Sushil Singhania and a probe is on.
