In Anirudh Arun Bhandarkar & Another v/s The State of Maharashtra (at the instance of Inspector of Police, MHB Colony Police Station, Borivili (West) & Another, the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR filed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which accused two employers of abetting the suicide of their employee. The decision was based on the lack of concrete evidence linking the applicants to the alleged abetment of suicide.
The applicants, who were the owners of a shop where the deceased, Raghuvir Acharya, worked as a cashier, faced accusations following the suicide of their employee in July 2017. The FIR, lodged by the deceased's son, alleged that Raghuvir had been subjected to severe mental harassment, including false theft allegations and verbal abuse by the applicants. The son claimed that the deceased’s multiple suicide notes pointed to the applicants as the cause of his distress, which allegedly led him to take his own life.
The Court’s Evaluation of Evidence:
The applicants’ counsel argued that the deceased had admitted to committing theft at the shop, and that he had agreed to either return the stolen goods or continue working at the shop until the debt was cleared. They further asserted that the suicide note did not contain any direct or indirect accusations of instigation by the applicants. The counsel referred to a ruling by the Supreme Court in Mohit Singhal and Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2024), where it was highlighted that mere allegations in a suicide note, without strong evidence of instigation, do not suffice to prove abetment of suicide.
On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the suicide note indicated a clear state of distress, alleging abuse and mistreatment by the applicants, and claimed that this mental pressure contributed to the deceased’s tragic decision.
However, after reviewing the available evidence, the court noted that the allegations in the suicide note, even if true, did not meet the legal criteria for abetment as defined under Section 306 IPC. The court emphasized that the act of instigating suicide requires clear evidence that the accused intentionally pushed the deceased towards taking their life, and that such an act must be proximate to the suicide itself.
Legal Precedents on Suicide and Abetment:
The court referred to established legal principles, including those in Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan (2021), where it was held that abetment of suicide must involve direct acts of incitement, coercion, or encouragement that lead the deceased to perceive no other option but to end their life. In S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010), the Supreme Court clarified that abusive language or harsh treatment alone would not amount to abetment unless there was a direct, proximate link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s decision to commit suicide.
Lack of Evidence for Abetment:
The court also considered statements from other employees and medical experts, which indicated that the deceased was suffering from depression and had suicidal thoughts even before the alleged harassment by the applicants. The evidence failed to establish that the applicants had incited or directly caused the suicide. Without sufficient proof of instigation or intentional aid, the court found the allegations against the applicants to be baseless.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court ruled that the FIR filed against the applicants did not establish the necessary elements of abetment under Section 306 IPC. As a result, the court quashed the FIR and ordered that the applicants be relieved from facing trial for the alleged crime. The judgment underscored the importance of clear, cogent evidence in abetment cases and emphasized that allegations of harassment alone are insufficient to prove the offence of abetment of suicide.
