ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE

SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC?

2.1THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY OF ABETTING THE
DECEASED’S SUICIDE
"Sui" means self and "cide" means killing, implying self-killing.
Person committing 63
In Encyclopaedia of Crime and Justice (Vol. 4) by Sanford H. Kadish,
the author mentions, thus:
"Other psychologically oriented theories have viewed suicide as a
means of handling aggressive impulses engendered by frustration."64
That in cases of woman of a sensitive and sentimental nature, it has
usually been observed that if they are tired of their life due to the
action of their kith and kin, they become so desperate that they
develop a spirit of revenge and try to destroy those who had made
their lives worthless and under this strong spell of revenge, sometimes
they can go to the extreme limit of committing suicide with a feeling
that the subject who is the root cause of their malady is also
destroyed. We might extract what Robert J. Kastenbaum in his book
"Death, Society and Human Experience" has to say:
"Revenge fantasies and their association with suicide are well known
to people who give ear to those in emotional distress."65
S. 306, I.P.C penalises abetment of suicide. It is a unique legal
phenomenon in the Indian Penal Code that the only act, the attempt of
which alone will become an offence. The person who attempts to
commit suicide is guilty of the offence under S. 309, I.P.C. whereas
the person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all. S. 306
renders the person who abets the commission of suicide punishable
for which the condition precedent is that suicide should necessarily
have been committed. But the crux of the offence under S. 306 itself
is abetment. In other words, if there is no abetment, there is no
question of the offence under S. 306 coming into play. . It is
submitted that the accused didn’t play any role in the suicide of the
deceased.
2.2 THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO
PROVE THAT THE DECEASED COMMITTED SUICIDE
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that evidence of the
suicide has to be drawn from the post-mortem report of the victim and
the mental condition of the victim. It is humbly submitted that as per
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, Evidence includes all
documents produced for the inspection of the Court67. These
documents are admissible in court as expert opinion under Section 45
of the I.E.A.
It is respectfully submitted that the post mortem report submitted by
the doctor conducting autopsy of the dead body is admissible in
evidence even without examining the doctor in court68. The Apex
Court has admitted as evidence and relied on post mortem reports in a
catena of cases69. The post mortem report of the deceased revealed
that the death was caused due to the high dosage of anesthesia. Hence,
the deceased committed suicide.
2.3 THERE WAS NO ABETMENT BY THE ACCUSED

Abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code71,

two essential ingredients must be established:
66
Satvir Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2828
67
" Evidence" means and includes-- (1) all statements which the Court permits or
requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under
inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents produced for
the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.
68 Basu Harijan v. State of Orissa 2003 CrLJ 2270; Pratap Tigga v. State of Bihar

2004 CrLJ NOC 86(Jhar).

69 State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal AIR 1994 SC 1418, Kunduru Dharua v.

State 2002 CrLJ 1757 (Ori).

70
Ananda Mohan Sen vs State of West Bengal 2007 Cri LJ 2770 (2776)
71
306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENSE Page 26

1. The deceased committed suicide

2. The accused abetted her in committing suicide.
3. Direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation
is necessary
Abetment contemplated in section 306 must conform to the definition
given in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, according to which
abetment can be brought about in three ways: by instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid to the deceased. Be that as it may, in a
case of this nature, where a plea of suicide has been put forward, the
Courts below should examine whether such a plea is altogether
untenable and whether suicide is ruled out.72
It is humbly submitted that the law regarding offence of abetment to
commit suicide is clear. A person can be said to instigate another
when he incites or otherwise encourages another, directly or
indirectly, to commit suicide73. The word ‘instigate’ means to goad or
urge forward or provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.74
Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to
do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is
not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused
had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct,
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other
option except to commit suicide, in which case, "instigation" may
have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said
to be instigation. Thus, to constitute 'instigation', a person who
instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing
of an act by the other by "goading" or 'urging forward'. The dictionary
meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into
act ion; provoke to action or reaction.....to keep irritating or annoying
somebody until he reacts.75 The word "instigate" literally means to
provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything.
The abetment may be by inaligation, conspiracy or intentional aid
72 Ramesh Kumar vs State of Punjab AIR 1994 SC 945
73 Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. 2002 CriLJ 2233
74 Parimal Chatterji v. Emperor 140 Ind. Cas.787.
75 Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC

1446; Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 :

(2009) 1 SCR 672 : AIR 2009 SC 1808 : 2009 0 Cri.L.J 1720.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENSE Page 27

as provided in the three clauses of the section.76 Instigate means the

active role played by a person with a view to stimulate another person
to do the thing. In order to hold a person guilty of abetting it must be
established that he had intentionally done something which amounted
to instigating another to do a thing.77
The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan
Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh78, that: "20. Abetment involves a
mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person
in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused
to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained.
It is submitted that there is no instigation by the accused. There are
problems in every relationship but that cannot be concluded as
instigation under abetment.
As to what would constitute instigation for the commission of an
offence would depend upon the facts of each case.
Therefore, in order to decide whether a person has abetted by
instigation the commission of an offence or not, the act of abetment
has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire evidence in the case.
The act of abetment attributed to an accused is not to be viewed or
tested in isolation.79 The Supreme Court has reiterated that before
anybody can be punished for abetment of suicide, it must be proved
that the death in question was a suicidal death.80 The offence of
abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who
abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has
abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional
aid as provided under Section 107 IPC . However, the words uttered
in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as
instigation.81
The Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State held that
“Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each
person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-
76 Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 469. 77 Rajib Neog v. State
of Assam, 2011 CrLJ 399(Gau) .
78
2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court)
79
Brij Lal vs Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661
80Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378 : 1989 Cr LJ 809 : (1989) 1
SCC 244. Where the charge was under s. 148/304 but was discharged and the
accused persons were convicted under s. 304/107, this was held to be wrong.
Section 221(2) of CrPC can be invoked only in cases of cognate offences and not
distinct ones. Ramesh Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., 1991 Cr LJ 2520Cal .
81State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532; Surender v. State of Hayana,
(2006) 12 SCC 375; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457; and Sonti
Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, AIR 2009 SC 923.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENSE Page 28

respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any strait-jacket

formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on
the basis of its own facts and circumstances.”82
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act
on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained.83 In a noted case, deceased committed
suicide by hanging himself because of alleged illicit relationship
between his wife and the accused. Accused took the wife of deceased
away from house of her brother and kept her with him for 4 days.
There is definitely a proximity and nexus between the conduct and
behaviour of accused and wife of deceased with that of suicide
committed by the deceased.84 Mere harassment of wife by husband
due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with
Section 107, IPC.85
It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended
to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.86
In the case of M. Mohan v. State87, the Apex Court held that there
should be some live link, or a proximate link between the act of the
accused and the act of committing of suicide. If the live link is
missing, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or
intentionally aided the commission of suicide.
In the case in hand, the deceased opened the accused’s medical box and
injected a 5 ml dose of potent anaesthetic , thinking, that would be enough
to kill her. The accused had no knowledge of such act of the deceased.
Therefore, there was no active role played by the accused to constitute
abetment of suicide. Moreover, normal wear and tear is a part of every
marital relationship, especially in this country. The deceased, in a fit of
anger, as a result of an argument between herself and the accused, did not
act consciously and took the extreme step of committing suicide.

It was held by Supreme Court in Nachhatter Singh v. State of Punjab that

every quarrel between husband and wife which results in suicide cannot be
taken to be abetment by husband. For abetment standard of reasonable and
practical woman as compared to headstrong and over sensitive one is to be
applied and hence appellant was acquitted.

82 Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605.
83 M. Mohan v. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011) 3
SCC 626 : 2011(3) SCALE 78 : AIR 2011 SC 1238 : 2011 0 Cri.L.J 1900;
Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707; Rakesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750; Thanu Ram v. State of M.P., 2010 (10) SCALE 557 :
(2010) 10 SCC 353 : (2010) 3 SCC 1502(Cri) ; S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan & Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2010 0 AIR SCW 4938);
84 Dammu Sreenu v. State of A.P., AIR 2009 SC 3728; (2009) 14 SCC 249.

85 Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 2108 : (2008) 11 SCC 215.
86 S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, 2010 (12) SCC 190 : 2010

AIR SCW 4938

87
2011 (3) SCC 626 : AIR 2011 SC 1238.
88 Charan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1967 SC 520.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENSE

It is submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence which

proves that there was an instigation by the accused. Therefore, there is
no case of abetmet to suicide against the accused. Mere suspicion of
abetment of suicide does not mean that the accused is guilty. It is a
well-known principle in criminal jurisprudence that the accused is
innocent unless proven guilty.90