Case title:
Brij Lal vs. Prem Chand & Anr
Date of Order:
20 April 1989
Bench:
S Natrajan
Parties:
Petitioner - Brij Lal
Respondent- Prem Chand & Anr
SUBJECT
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the crime of aiding suicide. This section states that if any person commits suicide and another person abets the commission of such suicide, then that person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to a fine. The section further defines what abetment means in this context. According to the provision, a person abets the commission of suicide when they instigate, advise, or encourage the commission of suicide by another person. Additionally, if a person provides any kind of assistance or facilitates the commission of suicide, they will also be considered to have abetted the crime.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 498A
- Section 304B
- Section 306
OVERVIEW
- Prem Chand (respondent) married Veena Rani (deceased) in the year 1973.
- The accused treated the deceased harshly and demanded more money from her, forcing her to move away to her parents' house.
- She later filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for conjugal rights restitution. Following this, the parties reached a compromise. Veena Rani returned to live with the accused.
- The accused continued to abuse her, and on 15.9.1975, Veena Rani was found lying on the ground with extensive burn injuries.
- The Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under section 306, I.P.C., as the deceased committed suicide at the instigation of the accused.
- The High Court, on appeal, acquitted the accused, stating that there was nothing on the record to show that the appellant had instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
- The matter has reached the Apex Court by way of two special leave petitions, one by the deceased's father and another by the State of Punjab.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether Veena Rani put an end to her life on her own volition or if she was aided in any manner by the accused?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- Advocate Shri R.S. Suri appeared on behalf of the State, and Mr. S.K. Bisaria appeared on behalf of the father of Veena Rani.
- The counsel urged that the High Court has made a mistake in its appreciation of the evidence and its application of the law.
- Finally, the counsel submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused should be restored.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Advocate Shri S.K. Mehta represented the accused in this case.
- The learned counsel contended that even if the prosecution evidence is accepted in full, there is no material to show that the suicidal death of Veena Rani was abetted in any manner by the accused.
- It was submitted by the counsel that the judgment of the High Court did not warrant any interference.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Supreme Court of India set aside the impugned High Court order and restored the conviction of the accused under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
- The court viewed that the Addl. Sessions Judge was perfectly correct while holding that the accused had instigated Veena Rani to commit suicide and, therefore, he would be guilty.
- The Supreme Court also observed that the High Court failed miserably to comprehend the evidence in its full capacity. Instead, it has whittled down the evidence through erroneous reasoning.
- The court held that what would constitute instigation for the commission of an offense would depend upon the facts of each case. To determine whether an individual has instigated the commission of a crime through abetment, the act of abetment must be evaluated in light of all the evidence presented in the case.
CONCLUSION
The act of assisting suicide is a serious offense in India and can result in severe punishment. The provision is in place to discourage the act of taking one's life and to hold those who assist in such acts accountable for their actions. The Supreme Court, in the present case, held that an act of abetment cannot be viewed or tested in isolation. The instigative words should be judged based on the distraught condition to which the accused had driven the victim.
