Case Name: Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024
Date: Sunday, the Eighteenth Day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty-Five
Quorum: Sri Justice B.R. Gavai (CJI) and Sri Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Facts of the Case
- This case arises out of several appeals challenging the Bombay High Court’s order allowing the quashing of the FIRs registered against multiple accused persons, including administrative and police officers and personnel, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The facts of the case involved the suicide of a seven-time member of Parliament, leaving behind a suicide note naming various persons from the police and administrative authority, asserting that they connived to defame, degrade and demean him to end his political career and social standing.
- According to the prosecution’s case, the deceased MP (member of Parliament) raised various complaints before the Lok Sabha Committee of Privileges, regarding breach of parliamentary privileges, alleging a continuous abuse and harassment by the administrative officials acting under the directions given by the Administrator of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
- The prosecution submitted that the deceased faced various harassment, including exclusion from various official functions like the Liberation Day Celebrations, not being invited to the programmes attended by the Union Ministers, disrespectful treatment by the administrative officials, circulating defamatory videos on social media and also several attempts at extortion and forceful takeover of SSR College run by the trust formed under the leadership of the deceased.
- The son of the deceased filed an FIR based on the contents of the suicide note and proceedings of the Committee of Privileges, resulting in registration of cases against multiple accused named in the suicide note under Section 306 IPC.
Issues Involved
- Whether the allegations of continuous humiliation and harassment by the administrative officials without an imminent incident can constitute abetment to suicide under section 306 read with section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the suicide note alone can be used as a credible source to establish and support the allegation of abetment when the content of the note therein was not raised during the deceased’s lifetime before the appropriate forum.
- What ingredients constitute the necessary mens rea for establishing abetment to suicide and the necessary causation?
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
- Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Sections 113A & 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Arguments by the Parties
Arguments by the Appellant
- The appellant, through their submissions, argued that there was a continuous effort from the accused persons’ side to belittle the deceased’s public image and put an end to his political career, as supported by the statements given and recorded by the Committee of Privileges.
- It was contended by the appellant that a conspiracy was started by the accused persons to stain the public and political image of the MP, particularly because of the reason that he had won seven times as an independent candidate, and there were also attempts to extort and forcefully take over the control of the college started under the trust under the leadership of the deceased MP.
- The appellants in this case relied on precedents like Dammu Sreenu v. State of AP, State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar and Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan, to call attention of the court to the fact that proximate incidents are not always necessary to establish abetment.
- It was brought to the attention of the Court that the totality of the circumstances and incidents should be considered, and a continuous harassment and humiliation of a person having public and political standing can result in suicide without having a specific proximate incident.
Arguments by the Respondents
- The state and the other respondents argued that the allegations stemmed from the over-sensitivity and that there is no proximate connection between the alleged suicide and the acts done by the administrative officials.
- It was pointed out by the respondents that the deceased had written to the Administrator less than a month ago before his death, which contradicts the allegations made in the suicide note left behind.
- Arguments were also made on the point that the High Court’s judgment was right and that the case clearly fell within the parameters for quashing the FIR registered under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Analysis
- Requirement of Proximate Causation: The court has emphasised that even in cases involving allegations of continuous harassment and humiliation of the victim, the presence or the establishment of proximate causation or prior act is necessary to demonstrate that the suicide was the direct consequence of such harassment.
- Mens Rea in Abetment Cases: The Court made it absolutely clear that mens rea cannot be made out from what goes on in the mind of the victim. The ingredients which constitute Mens Rea are the intention and the purpose of the alleged perpetrator, as distinguishable from the conscious acts or words and the relating circumstances that could possibly lead to the commission of suicide.
- Reliability on the suicide note of the victim: The court expressed serious doubts regarding placing reliability on the suicide note of the victim, stating that any of the allegations that are mentioned in the suicide note were never raised before any of the forums, even the Committee of Privileges, during the lifetime of the deceased. The court also found it important that the suicide note was not discovered or registered as evidence immediately.
- Analysis of the Legislative Framework: The court did an analysis of Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, which provide statutory presumptions in dowry death cases, and it noted that even in these provisions, there is a requirement of “soon before” incidents, demonstrating the recognition of the legislation of the need for proximate cause of action.
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals challenging the quashing of the FIRs and upheld the High Court’s decision, stating a number of reasons:
- There is no proximate cause of action: The incidents mentioned in the complaint were too remote to establish a direct causation of the incident that occurred in February 2021, especially when the Committee of Privileges has initiated corrective action.
- Absence of Mens Rea: The Court did not find evidence of deliberate intention by the accused to drive the deceased to suicide.
- Non-reliability on the suicide note: The court held that no reliance can be placed on the suicide note of the victim, because it particularly contained allegations that were never raised during the lifetime of the victim.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, by this landmark judgement, provides clarity on the legal principles governing abetment to suicide cases under Section 306 IPC. The Supreme Court, by this landmark judgement, provides clarity on the legal principles governing abetment to suicide cases under Section 306 IPC. This directive is now benchmarking the national approach, guarding against the invocation of the abetment provision whenever the factual basis is restricted to mere harassment without mens rea or proximate causation.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
WRITTEN BY YANA S JACOB
