NIPUN ANEJA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

         [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1483 : 2024 INSC 767

                  Nipun Aneja and Others
                              v.
                   State of Uttar Pradesh
              (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017)
                        03 October 2024
         [J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellants
herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under
section 306 of IPC.

                           Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide –
Victim-deceased was an employee of a company for past
twenty-three years – It is alleged that company wanted some
of its employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme
(VRS) – As all those employees were not ready to opt for the
VRS scheme, they were being harassed in some manner or
the other – It is further alleged that in a course of a office
meeting the deceased was humiliated by the appellants and
he felt very bad about it – Later, in a hotel room he committed
suicide – Charge-sheet was filed – The High Court declined
to quash the proceedings:
Held: The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is
to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on
record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that
the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide –
Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention
can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial – In the
case on hand, the entire approach of the High Court could be said
to be incorrect – The High Court should have examined the matter
keeping in mind the following: (a) On the date of the meeting, i.e.,
03.11.2006, did the appellants create a situation of unbearable
harassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the
only escape – To ascertain this, the two statements of the colleagues
of the deceased referred were sufficient; (b) Are the appellants
accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased
by making him feel worthless or underserving of life leading him
to commit suicide; (c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with
1484                                                         [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


    dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial
    ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out;
    (d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged
    the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due
    to public humiliation & loss of dignity – In the overall view of the
    matter, putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted
    the commission of suicide by the deceased will be nothing but
    abuse of process of law – In opinion of this Court, no case worth
    the name against the appellants is made out. [Paras 22, 23, 25]

    Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Ingredients to constitute an offence
    u/s.306:
    Held: The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section
    306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the
    suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming
    encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but
    to commit suicide – Further, as the extreme action of committing
    suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological
    imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two
    broad categories – First, where the deceased is having sentimental
    ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category
    would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused
    in his or her official capacity – In the case of former category
    sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may
    result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently
    creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the
    person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may
    give temptations to the person to commit suicide – In the case of
    second category the tie is on account of official relations, where
    the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided
    for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided
    in law – In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie
    cannot be equated with the official relationship – The reason being
    different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship – The former
    category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category,
    by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by
    law, rules, policies and regulations. [Para 21]

    Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Understanding of Courts –
    Unnecessary prosecutions:
    Held: The test that the Court should adopt in this type of
    cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                             1485

           Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh


     materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even
     prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the
     act, i.e., suicide – Over a period of time, the trend of the courts
     is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a
     full-fledged trial – The problem is that the courts just look into
     the factum of suicide and nothing more – Such an understanding
     on part of the Courts is wrong – In cases of abetment of suicide
     by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from
     the nature of the allegations itself – The Courts should know
     how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of
     suicide to the facts on record – It is the inability on the part of
     the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law
     to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary
     prosecutions – It is ultimately for the police and the courts of law
     to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom
     allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed
     or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.
     [Para 22]

                              Case Law Cited
     Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal (2005) 2 SCC 659;
     Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another [2021] 10 SCR
     393 : (2021) 19 SCC 144; M. Arjunan v. State, represented by
     its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315; Ude Singh & Others v.
     State of Haryana [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC 301; Mariano
     Anto Bruno & Another v. The Inspector of Police [2022] 14 SCR
     889 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387 – relied on.

                                 List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860.

                              List of Keywords
     Section 306 of Penal Code, 1860; Abetment of suicide; Harassment;
     Emotional vulnerability; Ingredients to constitute an offence u/s.306;
     Understanding of Courts; Unnecessary prosecutions; Principles of
     law governing abetment of suicide.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
     No. 654 of 2017
1486                                                     [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     From the Judgment and Order dated 10.03.2017 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in CRMC
     No. 3232 of 2007

                        Appearances for Parties
     Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Jain, Ms. Divya Jain, Ananta Prasad
     Mishra, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, Pramod Kumar Singh, Vijay Pal,
     Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.

               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Order

1.   This appeal is at the instance of three accused sought to be
     prosecuted in connection with Criminal Case No 11428 of 2007 for
     the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
     (for short, ‘the IPC’) and is directed against the order passed by the
     High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 10
     March 2017 by which the High Court rejected the application filed by
     the appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
2.   The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:
3.   The deceased, namely, Rajeev Jain was an employee of Hindustan
     Lever Limited. He was serving with the company past twenty-three
     years. On 03.11.2006, he committed suicide in his hotel room in
     Lucknow. The brother of the deceased, namely, Rajnish Jain lodged
     a First Information Report on 4 November 2006 in connection with
     the suicide committed by his brother. The First Information Report
     reads thus:
          “Late Shri Rajeev Jain who was working in Hindustan
          Lever Limited from past 23 years was having good work
          capacity therefore there was no spot on his career in
          any manner. He was very disciplined and dutiful person.
          Rajeev Jain who was my brother, his dead body was found
          in Hotel Ambar situated in Lucknow on 03.11.2006. After
          this sad incident applicant came to Lucknow and Bhabhi
          of applicant namely Smt. Sunita Devi Jain wife of Late
          Shri Rajeev Jain resident of B - 134 Bari Badi Gayabi Mu.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                        1487

           Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh


          Mehmurganj police Station Dhelupura District Varanasi also
          came. I want to present following facts before you on the
          basis of conversation held between me and my bhabhi
          and in between me and my elder brother from time to
          time. My elder brother Rajiv Jain was honest, disciplined
          employee of Hindustan Lever Limited and his retirement
          was fixed at the age of 60 Years. But from past one year
          he remained tensed because of the wrong behavior of
          some of his officers. With great efforts and on asking again
          and again he told that company is offering VRS Scheme
          and he is being compelled to accept the same. He also
          stated that it is being called VRS Scheme but it is made
          applicable as CRS (Compulsory Retirement Scheme).
          These officers would have certainly put pressure on him,
          its effect could be felt in the house also. In the month
          of September 2006 he was seen tensed and on asking
          told that company made VRS Scheme applicable and it
          will be continued till 30.09.06, but he is being compelled
          to accept the same forcefully and is being harassed. In
          this work the main role was of Shri Venkatesh RMM HLL
          Northern India, Shri Kalol Chakraborty RPM HLL Northern
          India, Shri Rupendra Yadav, RSM Northern India, Shri
          Nipun Aneja ASM Purvanchal, ZI Alvi, AE and Manish
          Sharma, AE and others. Because it is was introduced as
          a VRS scheme therefore my brother Late Rajiv Jain and
          his many other colleagues did not accept the same. After
          the month of September in the month of October 2006 the
          cruelty of some of the officers increased to more extent and
          when objected to, these persons threatened even through
          antisocial elements whereas my brother Late Rajiv Jain
          was very peaceful nature. Before coming to the programme
          organized by the company in Lucknow (Hotel Amber and
          Hotel Deep Palace) on 2nd and 3rd November 2006 he
          said that he will keep his defense strongly and will satisfy
          the officers and will take out permanent solution. Sir, with
          the aforesaid basis he came to Lucknow from Varanasi
          on 01.11.06 and stayed in Hotel Amber along with his
          colleagues. On 02.11.06 he talked at home through phone.
          On 03.11.06 my brother was again harassed unnecessarily.
1488                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          After that those officers handed over some letter to him.
          My brother Late Rajiv Jain told about his difficulty at
          home also on telephone on 03.11.06. Then they came
          to their hotel from meeting. Afterwards his dead body is
          found in the room. Sir, I have the complete belief that for
          instigating my brother Shri Rajiv Jain to take such a weak
          step following officer and other officers of the company
          are mainly responsible.
          1.   Shri Venki Vekatesh R.M. North India, H.L.L.
          2.   Shri Kaloi Chakraborty R.P.M. North India, H.L.L.
          3.   Shri Rupendra Yadav, R.S.M. North India H.L.L.
          4.   Shri Z.I. Alwi, A.E. H.L.L.
          5.   Shri Meenish Sharma, A.E. H.L.L.
          6.   Shri Nipun Aneja, A.S.M. Eastern U.P. H.L.L.
          This fact is also important because even after occurrence
          of such a painful incident no officer of company till date
          has come in front in any manner Sir, it is requested that on
          writing the report kindly initiate the necessary proceedings.
          My bhabhi and me unlucky brother who are in pain will
          be very grateful to you.”
4.   Thus, it appears on plain reading of the First Information Report that
     the appellants before us in their capacity as senior officers of the
     company had convened a meeting on 3 November 2006 with the
     employees of the company at Hotel Amber in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
     The deceased alongwith his colleagues was present in the meeting.
     The gravamen of the charge is that the company wanted around fifty
     to sixty office employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme
     (VRS). As all those employees were not ready to opt for the VRS
     scheme, they were being harassed in some manner or the other.
     It is further alleged that in the course of the meeting the deceased
     was humiliated by the appellants & he felt very bad about it.
5.   In the course of investigation, the police recorded statements of
     some of the colleagues of the deceased who were also present in
     the meeting. We may look into just two statements in this regard.
     The first statement is of Sudhir Kumar Ojha. In his police statement,
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                        1489

           Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh


     he has stated the following:
          “Shri Sudhir Kumar Ojha son of Late Shri Shyam Kishore
          Ojha resident of Om Niwas Civil Lines P.S. Kotwali District
          Sultanpur on oath stated that I and Shri Rajeev are
          working in Hindustan Lever Limited Company at the post
          of salesman. I was appointed as salesman and Shri Rajiv
          Jain was posted in Varanasi. On 01.11.06 we came in
          Ambar Hotel and both of us stayed in no.244. On 03.11.06
          we reached at Deep Palace Hotel at around 09:30 AM
          for the purpose of participating in meeting. First of all we
          were preferred by Nipun Aneja, ZILV, Vijay Dev Sharma,
          Manish Sharma, M.A. Khan and others in the meeting. In
          the meeting of last month for all the salesman the voluntary
          retirement scheme of Districts of East Uttar Pradesh for
          all the salesman is brought in front and the same is done
          through the Unnav company which is not accepted by most
          of the persons. In the meeting which took place now also
          most of the salesman were made as responsible for lower
          category from past on making changes in profile which is
          beyond our status. Shri Rajiv Jain started crying on being
          tensed in the meeting. In this manner the company started
          the procedure of changing the VRS to CRS. Meeting came
          to an end at around 5:30 PM. I went on the residence
          of my sister Sudha. From there at 8 PM returned back
          in hotel and came in room no.123 and along with my
          colleague Keshav Tiwari son of Shri Rakesh Tiwari along
          with Pandey General Store Kachehri Chowk Bier reached
          in room no.244. Room was closed from inside. Efforts are
          made to get it open and called up through telephone. But
          no reply was there then we contacted the Manager of the
          hotel who on making efforts at his own level Subhash Nath
          Employee was sent inside from the bathroom of the room
          and got the door opened and saw that Shri Rajiv Jain tied
          the knot of bed sheet and was hanging from fan. He was
          checked and found that he is dead. Information about all
          this is given during the course of meeting to M. Venkatesh
          on 03.11.06. Letter which was given to Rajiv Jain in the
          meeting is found in his room. I am giving the same to you.”
1490                                                     [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                   Digital Supreme Court Reports


6.   The second statement is one of Shri Jayant Kumar Ghatak. His
     police statement reads thus:
         “Jayant Kumar Ghatak son of Late Vijay Kumar
         Ghatak resident of 124 Sohaptia Bagh police station
         Daraganj Allahabad on oath stated that on 03.07.06
         the panchayatnama was filled of Rajiv Jain who committed
         suicide in Amber Hotel and the dead body was sent on duly
         stamping and sealing to the constables for the purpose of
         post-mortem. Signatures were taken.
         Statement of witness -
         Jayant Kumar Ghatak son of Late Shri Vijay Kumar Ghatak
         resident of 184 Sohaptia Kaam Allahabad police station
         George Town District Allahabad on oath stated with regard
         to his colleague Late Rajiv Jain with regard to the incident
         committed along with him then he stated on oath during
         the course of enquiry that each month meeting of one
         day - one day is done with regard to sales by officers
         which took place one day in each month but this month
         two days the meeting was called. On first day meeting took
         place in Amber Hotel, in which the talks were held by the
         officers who came in the meeting with regard to sales but
         on 03.11.06 the meeting which was held in Deep Palace,
         that was called for harassing the employees salesman
         who are not taking VRS and for the purpose of doing their
         demotion. In the meeting area sales manager M. Nipun
         Aneja, ZILV, Manish Sharma, M.H. Khan and Vijay Dev
         came in the meeting. In the meeting the meeting was
         called of the person not taking the VRS and of sales man.
         In the meeting 1. R.R. Kapoor, 2. Keshav Tiwari 3. R.N.
         Prasad, 4. R.N. Shukl, 5. Sudhir Ojha, 5. B.N. Gupta 9.
         Hari Shyam Mishra 2. Rajiv Jain and I was in the staff
         meeting. In the meeting all the sales men were called by
         number who have not taken the VRS and while stating
         the bad about them M. Nipun Aneja, Manish Sharma
         and ZILV were given one transfer letter for the post of
         merchandising which was post lower from salesman and
         those employees who were not accepting the transfer letter,
         their life will be ruined and will be dispelled from service.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                       1491

           Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh


          Vijay Dev Nani and M.A. Khan who were present in the
          meeting did not said bad to anyone and nor provide mental
          harassment. They were only present. Scheme of VRS
          was launched by Kalol Chakravarty and Rupendra Yadav
          who came one year back for the purpose of launching
          the same who harassed us a lot, that the one who will
          not take the VRS will be dispelled. M. Banki Venkatesh
          from whose signature transfer was done in merchandising
          from salesman. They harassed us mentally earlier for
          the purpose of taking of VRS. On not taking the VRS on
          forcefully harassing mentally on doing their signature done
          our transfer in merchandising from sales man. The letter
          was given by M. Nipun Aneja, Manish Sharma and ZILV.
          On calling Rajiv Jain in last in meeting gave the transfer
          letter of merchandising from salesman and stated bad
          because of which on being aggrieved Rajiv Jain started
          crying in meeting all only. We were very tensed. After
          ending of the meeting all the persons came to Amber Hotel,
          but in his room ...... Sudhir Ojha on going at the place of
          his sister Sudha came alone in rickshaw and on going in
          his room directly strangulated himself on putting the loop
          with fan and committed suicide on closing the door. We
          while leaving the hotel knocked the door then the room
          was closed from inside then though he might be getting
          fresh alone therefore we returned back to Allahabad. On
          way near Raibarelly received the information on phone
          then returned back to hotel then on sending inside from
          window the son of Subhash Chandra Verma the room
          was got opened, there dead body was hanging with fan
          and they died. And after panchayatnama the dead body
          was sent for the purpose of proceedings for the purpose
          of postmortem. Despite of information to the officers of
          department no one came to Hotel Amber. Officers of our
          department harassed Rajiv Jain and us that at last Rajiv
          Jain committed suicide. This is my statement which is
          recorded in the court.”
7.   Thus, the two police statements referred to above if read closely
     reveals that the three appellants in their capacity as high-ranking
     officers of Hindustan Lever Ltd. had convened a meeting in Hotel
1492                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     Amber with the employees of the company serving as salesmen.
     This meeting was convened to discuss about the sales of the
     company. On the next day, i.e., 03.11.2006, the meeting as alleged
     was convened only to harass those salesmen who were not ready
     to opt for VRS. In this meeting as alleged some of the salesmen
     including the deceased were issued letter to undertake the work of
     merchandising. This was not liked by all the employees. They felt
     that after putting in 23 years of service as salesmen, they could not
     have been asked to undertake the work of merchandising. Again, as
     alleged, this was done by way of punishment for refusing to voluntarily
     retire. It is not the case that just one person, i.e., the deceased was
     targeted & humiliated.
8.   On the basis of the aforesaid statements, the police thought fit to file
     charge-sheet. The filing of the charge-sheet ultimately culminated in
     the criminal proceedings.
9.   As the High Court declined to quash the proceedings, the appellants
     are here before this Court.
10. Before we proceed to say anything on the merits of the case, we
    should look into the line of reasoning assigned by the High Court
    in its impugned order while rejecting the petition seeking quashing
    of the criminal proceedings. The High Court in its impugned order
    in paragraphs 31, 39, 40 and 46 respectively has observed thus:
          "31. In the present case, the employees Sudhir Kumar
               Ojha and Jayant Kumar Ghatak have specifically
               stated the humiliation which was faced by the
               deceased due to the action of Z.I. Alvi, Nipun Aneja
               and Manish Kumar Sharma coupled with humiliation
               which was continuously being faced by the deceased
               due to the behavior of Rupendra Yadav and Kallol
               Chakaraborty. There is direct nexus between the
               deliberations that took place in the meeting and the
               suicide committed by the deceased just thereafter.

                     xxx               xxx                 xxx
          39. Coming to the factual matrix of the present case,
              the statement of Sunita Jain wife of the deceased
              is relevant & attains importance with reference to
              the statements of Sudhir Kumar Ojha and Jayant
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                        1493

           Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh


                Kumar Ghatak. Sudhir Kumar Ojha and Jayant Kumar
                Ghatak have specifically stated that the deceased was
                humiliated in the meeting. He was given a letter to
                do the job on a lower cadre post in merchandising.
                Deceased was working in the establishment for the
                last about 23 years. Without any inquiry or leveling
                any charge against him, he was asked to work on
                a lower post, although it is true that it is a matter
                between the employer and employee, which is
                contractual obligation.
          40. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended
              that the contractual relationship between the employer
              and employee in the company was such that the
              employer could have asked the employees to work
              on any post. It is further contended that in the list of
              employees who had opted the VRS scheme, name
              of the deceased was not there. Deceased had not
              opted for voluntary retirement. This aspect attains
              importance.

                     xxx              xxx                 xxx
          46. In the present case, the deceased was so much
              humiliated publicly that, just after the meeting, he
              went to his room and committed suicide. There is a
              direct link between the meeting and the commission
              of suicide. Deceased was being continuously
              humiliated and tortured to either accept the VRS or
              to accept the letter of working in the merchandising
              department, which is in lower grade than the grade
              wherein the deceased was functioning. It is the cause
              which instigated the deceased to take the extreme
              step. The accused Nipun Aneja, Z.I. Alvi and Manish
              Kumar Sharma are the officers of the employer-
              company, who were present in the meeting, had
              every reason to humiliate the deceased to an extent
              that he should accept their dictates, otherwise the
              deceased would have not taken the extreme step.
              In this reference, statement of wife of the deceased
              also attains importance wherein she has stated that
1494                                                    [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


               the deceased was under continuous mental pressure
               and depression due to behaviour of the accused.
               Specific allegations have been levelled by Jayant
               Kumar Ghatak and Sunil Kumar Ojha against the
               accused petitioners Nipun Aneja, Z.I. Alvi and Manish
               Mukar Sharma.”
11. Thus, according to the High Court, the deceased committed suicide on
    account of instigation in the form of harassment & humiliation at the
    end of the appellants. The question is in what manner the appellants
    could be said to have instigated the deceased that ultimately led
    him to commit suicide.
12. Prima facie, it appears that two things weighed with the High Court.
    First, the two police statements of the colleagues of the deceased
    referred to above & secondly, the act on the part of the appellants
    in handing over the letter to all the salesmen present in the meeting
    including the deceased containing instructions therein to do the
    work of merchandising. This according to the High Court amounted
    to demotion.
13. The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is well settled. Section
    306 of the IPC reads as under:-
          "360. 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.”
14. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section
    306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment
    of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:-
          "107. Abetment of a thing.─ A person abets the doing
                of a thing, who─
                First. ─ Instigates any person to do that thing; or
                Secondly.─ Engages with one or more other person
                or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
                thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
                pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                        1495

            Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh


                 doing of that thing; or
                 Thirdly.─ Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
                 omission, the doing of that thing.
                 Explanation 1. — A person who by wilful
                 misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of
                 a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
                 voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
                 or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate
                 the doing of that thing.
                 Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the
                 time of the commission of an act, does anything in
                 order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
                 thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
                 aid the doing of that act.”
15. In the decision of this Court in case of Netai Dutta v. State of West
    Bengal, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 659, an employee of a company
    was transferred from one place to another. However, he failed to join.
    Thereafter, he sent a letter of resignation expressing his grievance
    against stagnancy to salary and unpleasant situation. The company
    accepted the resignation. Thereafter, the said employee committed
    suicide. He left behind a suicide note, alleging therein that Netai Dutta
    and, one Paramesh Chatterjee engaged him in several wrong doings.
    The same was alleged as, torture. The brother of the deceased filed
    complaint, against Netai Dutta and others under Section 306 of the
    IPC. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta declined to
    quash the complaint. In appeal, however, this Court while quashing
    the complaint, at paragraphs 5 and 6 observed as under:
          "5.   There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide
                note that the present appellant had caused any harm
                to him or was in any way responsible for delay in
                paying salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It
                seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied
                with the working conditions at the work place. But,
                it may also be noticed that the deceased after his
                transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 160
                B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself
1496                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


                for a period of two years and that the suicide took
                place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said that the present
                appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to
                commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide
                of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section
                306. IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for
                the commission of the crime. The parameters of the
                “abetment” have been stated in Section 107 of the
                Penal Code, 1860. Section 107 says that a person
                abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person
                to do that thing : or engages with one or more other
                person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
                that thing, if an act or illegal omission taken place in
                pursuance of that conspiracy, or the person should
                have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission.
                The explanation to. Section 107 says that any willful
                misrepresentation or willful concealment of a material-
                fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come
                within the contours of “abetment”
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)
          6.    In the suicide note, except referring to the name of
                the appellant at two places, there is no reference of
                any-act or incidence where by the appellant herein is
                alleged to have, committed any willful act or omission
                or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased)
                Pranab Kumar Nag to committing the act of suicide.
                There is no case that the appellant has played any
                part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately
                instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide
                by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.”
16. This Court, thereafter at para 7, inter alia, observed that—
          "7.   ….The prosecution initiated against the appellant
                would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant
                without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned
                single Judge seriously erred in holding that the first
                information report against the appellant disclosed
                the elements of a cognizable offence. There was
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                            1497

           Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh


                absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant
                herein.”
17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another
    reported in (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the provisions of
    Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under
    Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:-
          "14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a
               criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the
               same.
                ....
          15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’
              is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do
              something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State
              of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, has defined the
              word ‘instigate’ as under:-
                       "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
                       incite or encourage to do “an act”.”
          16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-
              relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed
              repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena
              Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr (2010) 12 SCC
              190, it was observed as under:-
                       “25. 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. The intention of the legislature
                       and the ratio of the cases decided by the
                       Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict
                       a person under Section 306 IPC there has to
                       be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. 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
1498                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


                     he committed suicide.””
18. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of
    Police reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary
    ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC in detail, observed as under:-
          "7.   The essential ingredients of the offence under Section
                306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of
                the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased
                to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however,
                insulting the deceased by using abusive language
                will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide.
                There should be evidence capable of suggesting that
                the accused intended by such act to instigate the
                deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients
                of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied,
                accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”
19. This Court in Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana reported in
    (2019) 17 SCC 301, held that in order to convict an accused under
    Section 306 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular
    crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It
    was observed as under:-
          "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must
               be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to
               the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed
               that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly
               in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide,
               remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and
               complex attributes of human behavior and responses/
               reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of
               suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and
               convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the
               commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere
               allegation of harassment of the deceased by another
               person would not suffice unless there be such action
               on the part of the accused which compels the person
               to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought
               to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether
               a person has abetted in the commission of suicide
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         1499

           Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh


                 by another or not, could only be gathered from the
                 facts and circumstances of each case.
          16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
                abetted commission of suicide by another; the
                consideration would be if the accused is guilty
                of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As
                explained and reiterated by this Court in the
                decisions above referred, instigation means to goad,
                urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
                an act. If the persons who committed suicide had
                been hypersensitive and the action of accused is
                otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
                circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not
                be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of
                suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his
                acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates
                a situation which leads the deceased perceiving
                no other option except to commit suicide, the case
                may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC.
                If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the
                self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which
                eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the
                accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide.
                The question of mens rea on the part of the accused
                in such cases would be examined with reference to
                the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the
                acts and deeds are only of such nature where the
                accused intended nothing more than harassment
                or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall
                short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However,
                if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
                deceased by words or deeds until the deceased
                reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be
                that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter
                of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case
                is required to be examined on its own facts, while
                taking note of all the surrounding factors having
                bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused
                and the deceased.”
1500                                                     [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector
    of Police reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, Criminal Appeal
    No. 1628 of 2022 decided on 12th October, 2022, after referring to
    the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under
    Section 306 of the IPC observed as under:-
          "44. …It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
               alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of
               direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission
               of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
               without their being any positive action proximate to
               the time of occurrence on the part of the accused
               which led or compelled the person to commit
               suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is
               not sustainable.”
21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC
    (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed
    by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement
    by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as
    the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great
    disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such
    incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where
    the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with
    the accused and the second category would be where the deceased
    is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity.
    In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the
    hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological
    imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss
    of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of
    expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide,
    e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son,
    brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type,
    where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the
    case of second category the tie is on account of official relations,
    where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as
    provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as
    provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental
    tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being
    different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former
    category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category,
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                     1501

            Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh


     by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by
     law, rules, policies and regulations.
22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make
    an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record
    whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the
    accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over
    a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can
    be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial. The problem
    is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing
    more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts
    is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation.
    For example, whether the accused had the common intention under
    Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged
    trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the
    genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used,
    the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment
    of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly
    from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how
    to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide
    to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to
    understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of
    abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We
    do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the
    family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their
    part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police.
    However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look
    into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations
    have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not
    put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.
23. In the case on hand, the entire approach of the High Court could
    be said to be incorrect. The High Court should have examined the
    matter keeping in mind the following:
     (a)   On the date of the meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did the appellants
           create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading
           the deceased to see suicide as the only escape? To ascertain
           this, the two statements of the colleagues of the deceased
           referred to by us were sufficient.
     (b)   Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional
1502                                                        [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


             vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or
             underserving of life leading him to commit suicide?
     (c)     Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences,
             such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent
             that he believed suicide was the only way out?
     (d)     Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged
             the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide
             due to public humiliation & loss of dignity.
24. The aforesaid are just illustrations that could be considered as
    abetment under the law in the facts & circumstances of a given case.
25. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that putting the
    appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission
    of suicide by the deceased will be nothing but abuse of process of
    law. In our opinion, no case worth the name against the appellants
    is made out.
26. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
    impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The
    proceedings of Criminal Case No 11428 of 2007 pending in the court
    of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow are hereby quashed.
27. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan