CASE TITLE : PATEL BABUBHAI MANOHARDAS & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man accused of committing an offence of abetment of suicide by blackmailing the deceased using compromising photographs and videos.
The Court observed that
“Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence,” the Court observed.
Further, on whether the suicide note could form the sole basis for conviction, the Court answered that a suicide note alone is not sufficient to establish abetment unless it is corroborated by other evidence. The Court said that the authenticity of a suicide note must be proved, and the handwriting expert should be examined in court.
“Finally, even if we take the suicide note as correct and genuine, we do not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellants proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants.”, the court observed.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the appeal filed by the Appellant who was convicted under Section 306 IPC for abetting the suicide of the deceased for allegedly blackmailing the deceased using his compromised photographs and videos with a female colleague.
Citing precedents such as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, the Court observed that instigation must involve goading, urging, or provoking the deceased to commit suicide, and mere harassment or differences are not sufficient to establish abetment unless there is a proximate act leading to suicide.
“Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.”, the court observed.
Since the prosecution was not able to prove the proximate act by the appellants that directly led to the suicide, and the alleged blackmailing was not supported by concrete evidence, the Court noted that the suicide note alone was insufficient to establish abetment.
Further, the veracity of the suicide note was deemed doubtful by the Court, stating that the handwriting expert who examined the suicide note was not examined in court.
Relying on the case of Keshav Dutt versus State of Haryana (2010) 9 SCC 286, the Court held that expert evidence must be corroborated by direct or circumstantial evidence to be relied upon.
“One of the questions which fell for consideration in that case was whether the opinion of a handwriting expert can be admitted in evidence without examination of the handwriting expert. In this connection, this Court took the view that when the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the said expert. In that case, it was found that there was nothing on record to show that the accused persons had admitted to the report of the handwriting expert.”, the court observed.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt because the suicide note and other evidence were insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants, and there were significant lapses in the investigation and inconsistencies in witness testimonies
In light of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions of the appellants.
