Accused falsely implicated in criminal case for abatement of suicide by the father of deceased. It is a case of quarrel. My husband and his employee were in heated exchange of words on the missing shipment which was important for my husband. That shipment was handled by his deceased employee. When my husband received an email that the requisite documents have not been received yet from your end, he made some enquiry about his employee. During that enquiry my husband asked him to produce the bill and receipt of that shipment. He refused to furnish those documents.
Thereafter, my husband called his manager and told him to assign some general work and if possible, send him at the godown. Thereafter, the deceased employee went angry and said that it would be better to die than doing job at the godown. In that reply my husband told then go and die. On the next day he committed suicide, but no suicide note was found from his dead body. Investigation was completed and charge sheet has been filed under section 306 IPC. How to protect my husband.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
The facts of the case suggest that the accused had no intention of instigating the deceased to take his own life. There was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased regarding a missing shipment. The shipment was important to the accused, and the deceased failed to produce a receipt to prove its delivery. Following the argument, the accused called his manager and instructed that the deceased be transferred from the office to the godown. In response, the deceased remarked that it would be better to die, to which the accused replied, “Go and die.” The following day, the deceased committed suicide.
The entire incident indicates that the accused did not intend to instigate the deceased to commit suicide or end his life. The conduct of the accused further supports the view that he did not create circumstances that left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the accused instigated the deceased to take such an extreme step.
In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Supreme Court held that words spoken in a fit of anger or emotion, without the intention that consequences should actually follow, do not amount to instigation.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized in a series of judgments that to establish an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be specific abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, coupled with the intention on the part of the accused to bring about the suicide of the concerned individual. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, the Court further held that the intention of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased in committing suicide is essential to attract liability under Section 306 IPC.
The words “go and die” spoken by the accused do not amount to instigation in any legal sense. Since the deceased committed suicide the next day, he had ample time to reflect and cool down. If the charge sheet contains no direct or indirect evidence that establishes a clear link between the alleged incitement and the suicide, then it is advisable to approach the High Court for the quashing of the charge sheet.
A petition under Section 528 of the BNSS should be filed in the High Court for quashing the charge sheet and the entire proceedings, as the accused has been falsely implicated in criminal case for abatement of suicide.
Related: Legal position on police investigation under Section 202 CrPC