Merely drinking can never be an abetment for a person to commit suicide

Shubhani Mittal | Vivekananda Global University | 13th January 2020

Ramrao Kisan Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 391 of 2015

Facts –

While preparing panchanama, one chit was found in the left side pocket of the shirt of the deceased. The chit was containing recitals which stated that the deceased committed suicide being fed up by harassment and ill treatment at the hands of the appellant. 

Thereafter, a written complaint was filed by maternal uncle of the deceased, on the basis of which police constable, registered the crime against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 5.Appellant however  denied the charge that he is responsible and/or has abetted commission of suicide of deceased and claimed for his trial.

During the course of trial, friend of the deceased stated that stated that the appellant used to be under the influence of liquor and used to quarrel with his wife. Prosecution submitted to the Court that the conduct and behavior of the father caused great embarrassment for the deceased and  he was under great stress due to it. Hence the son committed suicide.

Judgement –

During the proceeding, the HC referred to Section 107 as well as the Section 305 and 306. The  High Court said that in  numerous decisions of the Supreme Court,  the law on abetment to commit suicide is well explained. The court also stated that Section 305 is a punishing section for abetting the suicide of an insane or a child, whereas Section 306 is a punishing section for the accused who abetted any other person to commit suicide, which is a sole difference between Sections 305 and 306 of IPC. However, the Court said that  the parameters for deciding the fact under Section 305 and 306 IPC are identical.

In the present case, there is no evidence that on the day of the incident or prior to the deceased committing suicide, applicant has instigated or abetted deceased to commit the same. Therefore, he does not fulfill the requisite mens rea to hold him guilty as abettor.

The HC, considering all the facts in this matter, observed, “The admitted position also speaks that the mother of the deceased was a psychic patient having nothing to do with the drinking of the appellant. Therefore, he used to be always under depressing conditions. Different persons may react differently to the same situation. Therefore, merely because the deceased by writing a note mentioning about the drinking habit of his father and committed suicide, in my view, it cannot be treated as an abetment, especially when the prosecution evidence falls short to show that there used to be ill-treatment at the hands of the appellant under the influence of liquor to the deceased so as to drive the deceased to take the extreme step of his life.”

Further, the court stated that  merely because the deceased by writing a suicide note stating about the drinking habit of his father and committed suicide, it cannot be treated as an abetment, especially when the prosecution fails to show that there used to be ill treatment used by the appellant under the influence of liquor to the deceased so as to drive him to take the extreme step of his life.Thus, the court decided that, “Merely drinking can never be an abetment for a person to commit suicide.”