Instigation Must Be in Close Proximity to the Act of Committing Suicide

On 01.12.2023, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crminal Appeal No. 3578 of 2023 titled Mohit Singhal & Anr. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. has decided on a substantial question of law relating to the abetment of suicide, wherein, the widow of the deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the father of the 1st Appellant and she again borrowed Rs. 60,000/- from the same person. While paying the said amount, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was deducted towards interest. The first Appellant demanded money from her deceased husband and he requested some more time to which the first Appellant abused the deceased and assaulted him with a belt. It is further alleged that the first Appellant assaulted the widow of the deceased and the mother of the deceased and threatened to abduct her daughter. It is alleged that the first Appellant had taken 10-12 cheques from the widow of the deceased and one cheque was dishonoured, hence, he issued a legal notice to the deceased. It is further alleged that due to the acts of the first Appellant of threatening him, the deceased took recourse to the extreme step of committing suicide leaving behind a suicide note against the first Appellant.

An FIR was registered against the Appellants under Section 306 of the IPC, therefore, the Appellants approached the High Court to quash the same, however, the High Court rejected the prayer of quashing.   

Issue: Whether the Appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide? 

Section 107 of the IPC provides that a person abets the doing of a thing, who —

First.— Instigates any person to do that thing; or 

Secondly. — Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or 

Thirdly.— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 

The Supreme Court observed that “to attract the first clause of Section 107 of the IPC, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide”.

The Supreme Court while setting aside the impugned judgment and quashing the summoning order has held that it is impossible to conclude that the Appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount from him by using abusive language and assaulting him with a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of the suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the Appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the Appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed his widow for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.