New Delhi: The Supreme Court has declared that the use of insulting words like "impotent" does not automatically make someone liable for abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Supreme Court Rules That Insulting Someone as "Impotent" Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide
In this recent case, an accused couple was accused of abetting their son-in-law's suicide based on a visit during which harsh words were exchanged, and the daughter was forcibly taken home. The man took his own life a month later, leaving a suicide note accusing his in-laws of harassment and referencing the "impotent" comment.
Initially, the Madras High Court refused to dismiss the police case against the couple. However, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih, overturned the High Court's judgment. They stated that the suicide note does not explicitly point to persistent provocation or cruelty.
The judges expressed that although hurtful remarks can be highly offensive, they do not necessarily constitute abetment to suicide on their own. Moreover, the man did not have any contact with his in-laws between the alleged humiliation incident and his suicide.
"Simply because the accused's actions were highly upsetting to the deceased does not automatically translate to abetment to suicide," the judges said, citing the definition of abetment under the law.
The judges also clarified that for abetment to be established under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear indication of the accused's intentions to help and facilitate the suicide. This includes provocation, complicity, and active assistance in the suicide act. Additionally, evidence of sustained harassment or continuous provocation must be presented to prove abetment.
In this case, the court believed there was no intent shown by the accused and no direct causation between their actions and the suicide. To establish abetment, there must be clear proof of intention to aid and abet the suicide, which was missing in this scenario.
In the past, the Court has emphasized that offensive language alone does not equate to abetment, especially in cases where no deliberate instigation is present [M. Arjunan v. State]. This ruling reaffirmed that legal abetment requires evidence of intent and proximate causation, not just offensive remarks.
- Despite the offensive remark about his 'impotence', the court ruled that it does not necessarily establish abetment to suicide, as there was no evidence of sustained harassment or direct causation between the remark and the deceased's decision to take his life.
- In contrast to the initial judgment, the Supreme Court overturned the Madras High Court's decision, stating that the suicide note did not explicitly point to persistent provocation or cruelty, thereby not fulfilling the requirements for abetment to suicide as defined under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
- General news reports today focus on the Supreme Court's ruling in a Delhi- based case, where the use of the word 'impotent' during a heated argument did not lead to a conviction for abetment to suicide, as there was no clear indication of the accused's intentions to aid and facilitate the suicide.
