New Delhi: The Maharashtra police Friday filed an FIR against five employees of ECL Finance on charges of abetment to suicide of Bollywood art director Nitin Desai.
As per reports, the FIR was registered under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on a complaint filed by Desai’s wife Neha Desai. ND’s Art World, Desai’s firm, had borrowed over Rs 180 crore from ECL Finance — a non-banking finance arm of the Edelweiss Group — between 2016 and 2018.
In his career spanning 30 years, Desai worked for acclaimed Bollywood films such as Lagaan, Jodhaa Akbar and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam. He was also the the go-to person for political parties and the state government for putting up grand daises at public events.
His wife’s complaint alleged that her husband was facing repeated mental harassment in connection with the loan, driving him to suicide.
In July 2020, Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s father had also lodged an FIR against his rumoured actor girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty and six others, including her family members, for abetment to suicide, wrongful restraint, cheating and criminal breach of trust. This was a month after the actor was found hanging from the ceiling of his apartment in suburban Bandra in Mumbai on 14 June. The CBI took over the probe from the Bihar police in August 2020. However, it is yet to file a chargesheet or close the case.
But what is abetment to suicide and how does the court determine if the accused drove a person to die by suicide? ThePrint explains.
Also read: This is the 2018 suicide abetment case behind Arnab Goswami’s arrest
What does the law say
Section 306 of the IPC makes abetment to suicide a criminal offence. It says that if any person dies by suicide, “whoever abets the commission of such suicide” shall be punished with a jail term of up to 10 years, along with fine.
Section 107 of IPC separately defines abetment as instigating, or engaging in a conspiracy or intentionally aiding in committing of an offence. The offence of abetment of suicide is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, placing it in the category of serious offences.
Cognizable offences are those in which a police officer can make an arrest without a warrant from a court. These include offences which are considered more serious in nature, such as murder, rape, dowry death, and kidnapping. If an offence is non-bailable, bail is granted to the accused at the discretion of the court, and not as a matter of right. A non-compoundable offence is one in which the court does not accept a compromise between the complainant and the accused, and necessarily requires a trial.
What happens if someone is named in a suicide note?
Courts have held that a person cannot be held guilty under Section 306 merely because their name appears in a suicide note, until all the ingredients of the offence are made out. There have to be specific allegations against a person, showing that the accused “committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated” the deceased to die by suicide. But what constitutes abetment to suicide?
Courts have emphasized on the fact that the “human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other”, and that “different people behave differently in the same situation”. Courts have therefore asserted that there can be no straitjacket formula while dealing with such cases, because every person’s “suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect”. In the same vein, the court has also said that an abetment case will weaken if the deceased person is found to be very sensitive compared to a reasonable person.
However, the court has asserted in the past that in order to convict a person under Section 306, there has to be a clear “mens rea” to commit the offence. Mens rea literally translates to “guilty mind” and refers to a criminal intent or a wrongful intention to commit a crime.
It has explained that to constitute instigation, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”.
In a 2009 judgment, it explained, “In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.”
‘Mere allegations of harassment not enough’
The Supreme Court has consistently asserted that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, just allegations of harassment are not enough. The complaint also needs to show a “positive action” committed by the accused close to the time of the suicide.
In a judgment passed last year, the SC explained that in such cases, “there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide”. It explained that nobody can be convicted only on allegation of harassment, without there being any “positive action proximate to the time of occurrence” by the accused which drove the person to commit suicide.
In a 2002 judgment, the apex court also ruled that words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be equated with instigation, so as to qualify as abetment to suicide.
For example, take a look at the facts of a 1995 SC judgment. As per the verdict, one Sushila Bai had two “paramours” — the deceased, who had died by suicide, and one Swamy Prahaladdas. While Sushila Bai was facing a trial for abetment of suicide, the trial court also tried to involve Swamy Prahaladdas as an accused.
This was because before the deceased died by suicide, the trio had a quarrel during which, Prahaladdas asked the deceased to ‘go and die’. However, the Supreme Court ruled that “those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarreling people”.
“Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter,” it added, ruling that Prahaladdas did not need to face the charge of abetment to suicide.
The court also observed, “The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. Besides, the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life.”
In another 2001 judgment, the Supreme Court explained that “a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation”.
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)
Also read: Surat’s diamond industry has a suicide problem. Police to bosses, nobody wants to join the dots