{"file_name": "2024_10_1483_1502_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1483 : 2024 INSC 767\n\nNipun Aneja and Others \nv. \nState of Uttar Pradesh\n\n(Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017)\n\n03 October 2024\n\n[J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nThe  High  Court  rejected  the  application  filed  by  the  appellants \nherein  seeking  quashing  of  the  criminal  proceedings  under   \nsection 306 of IPC.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nPenal  Code,  1860  –  s.306  –  Abetment  of  suicide  –   \nVictim-deceased  was  an  employee  of  a  company  for  past   \ntwenty-three years – It is alleged that company wanted some \nof  its  employees  to  opt  for  Voluntary  Retirement  Scheme \n(VRS) – As all those employees were not ready to opt for the \nVRS scheme, they were being harassed in some manner or \nthe  other  –  It  is  further  alleged  that  in  a  course  of  a  office \nmeeting the deceased was humiliated by the appellants and \nhe felt very bad about it – Later, in a hotel room he committed \nsuicide – Charge-sheet was filed – The High Court declined \nto quash the proceedings:\n\nHeld: The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is \nto make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on \nrecord whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that \nthe accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide – \nOver a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention \ncan be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial – In the \ncase on hand, the entire approach of the High Court could be said \nto be incorrect – The High Court should have examined the matter \nkeeping in mind the following: (a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., \n03.11.2006,  did  the  appellants  create  a  situation  of  unbearable \nharassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the \nonly escape – To ascertain this, the two statements of the colleagues \nof  the  deceased  referred  were  sufficient;  (b) Are  the  appellants \naccused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased \nby  making  him  feel  worthless  or  underserving  of  life  leading  him \nto commit suicide; (c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with \n\n\f1484 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\ndire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial \nruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out; \n(d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged \nthe reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due \nto public humiliation & loss of dignity – In the overall view of the \nmatter, putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted \nthe  commission  of  suicide  by  the  deceased  will  be  nothing  but \nabuse of process of law – In opinion of this Court, no case worth \nthe name against the appellants is made out. [Paras 22, 23, 25]\n\nPenal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Ingredients to constitute an offence \nu/s.306:\n\nHeld:  The  ingredients  to  constitute  an  offence  under  Section \n306  of  the  IPC  (abetment  of  suicide)  would  stand  fulfilled  if  the \nsuicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming \nencouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but \nto commit suicide – Further, as the extreme action of committing \nsuicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological \nimbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two \nbroad categories – First, where the deceased is having sentimental \nties or physical relations with the accused and the second category \nwould be where the deceased is having relations with the accused \nin  his  or  her  official  capacity  –  In  the  case  of  former  category \nsometimes  a  normal  quarrel  or  the  hot  exchange  of  words  may \nresult  into  immediate  psychological  imbalance,  consequently \ncreating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the \nperson  is  unable  to  control  sentiments  of  expectations,  it  may \ngive temptations to the person to commit suicide – In the case of \nsecond category the tie is on account of official relations, where \nthe expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided \nfor such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided \nin law – In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie \ncannot be equated with the official relationship – The reason being \ndifferent nature of conduct to maintain that relationship – The former \ncategory leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, \nby and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by \nlaw, rules, policies and regulations. [Para 21]\n\nPenal  Code,  1860  –  s.306  –  Understanding  of  Courts  – \nUnnecessary prosecutions:\n\nHeld:  The  test  that  the  Court  should  adopt  in  this  type  of \ncases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1485\n\nmaterials on record whether there is anything to indicate even \nprima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the \nact, i.e., suicide – Over a period of time, the trend of the courts \nis that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a \nfull-fledged  trial  – The  problem  is  that  the  courts  just  look  into \nthe factum of suicide and nothing more – Such an understanding \non part of the Courts is wrong – In cases of abetment of suicide \nby and large the facts make things clear more particularly from \nthe  nature  of  the  allegations  itself  –  The  Courts  should  know \nhow to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of \nsuicide to the facts on record – It is the inability on the part of \nthe courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law \nto the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary \nprosecutions – It is ultimately for the police and the courts of law \nto look into the matter and see that the persons against whom \nallegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed \nor they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them. \n[Para 22]\n\nCase Law Cited\n\nNetai  Dutta  v.  State  of  West  Bengal  (2005)  2  SCC  659;   \nGeo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another [2021] 10 SCR \n393  :  (2021)  19  SCC  144;  M. Arjunan  v.  State,  represented  by \nits Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315; Ude Singh & Others v. \nState of Haryana [2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC 301; Mariano \nAnto Bruno & Another v. The Inspector of Police [2022] 14 SCR \n889 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387 – relied on.\n\nPenal Code, 1860.\n\nList of Acts\n\nList of Keywords\n\nSection 306 of Penal Code, 1860; Abetment of suicide; Harassment; \nEmotional vulnerability; Ingredients to constitute an offence u/s.306; \nUnderstanding of Courts; Unnecessary prosecutions; Principles of \nlaw governing abetment of suicide.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Criminal  Appeal   \nNo. 654 of 2017\n\nNipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh\f1486 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 10.03.2017 of the High Court \nof  Judicature  at Allahabad,  Lucknow  Bench,  Lucknow  in  CRMC \nNo. 3232 of 2007\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nGagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Jain, Ms. Divya Jain, Ananta Prasad \nMishra, Advs. for the Appellants.\n\nShaurya  Sahay, Aditya  Kumar,  Pramod  Kumar  Singh,  Vijay  Pal, \nVarinder Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nOrder\n\n1.  This  appeal  is  at  the  instance  of  three  accused  sought  to  be \nprosecuted in connection with Criminal Case No 11428 of 2007 for \nthe offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code \n(for short, ‘the IPC’) and is directed against the order passed by the \nHigh  Court  of  Judicature  at Allahabad,  Lucknow  Bench  dated  10 \nMarch 2017 by which the High Court rejected the application filed by \nthe appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.\n\n2.  The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:\n\n3.  The deceased, namely, Rajeev Jain was an employee of Hindustan \nLever Limited. He was serving with the company past twenty-three \nyears.  On  03.11.2006,  he  committed  suicide  in  his  hotel  room  in \nLucknow. The brother of the deceased, namely, Rajnish Jain lodged \na First Information Report on 4 November 2006 in connection with \nthe suicide committed by his brother. The First Information Report \nreads thus:\n\n“Late  Shri  Rajeev  Jain  who  was  working  in  Hindustan \nLever Limited from past 23 years was having good work \ncapacity  therefore  there  was  no  spot  on  his  career  in \nany manner. He was very disciplined and dutiful person. \nRajeev Jain who was my brother, his dead body was found \nin Hotel Ambar situated in Lucknow on 03.11.2006. After \nthis sad incident applicant came to Lucknow and Bhabhi \nof  applicant  namely  Smt.  Sunita  Devi  Jain  wife  of  Late \nShri Rajeev Jain resident of B - 134 Bari Badi Gayabi Mu. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1487\n\nMehmurganj police Station Dhelupura District Varanasi also \ncame. I want to present following facts before you on the \nbasis  of  conversation  held  between  me  and  my  bhabhi \nand  in  between  me  and  my  elder  brother  from  time  to \ntime. My elder brother Rajiv Jain was honest, disciplined \nemployee of Hindustan Lever Limited and his retirement \nwas fixed at the age of 60 Years. But from past one year \nhe  remained  tensed  because  of  the  wrong  behavior  of \nsome of his officers. With great efforts and on asking again \nand again he told that company is offering VRS Scheme \nand he is being compelled to accept the same. He also \nstated that it is being called VRS Scheme but it is made \napplicable  as  CRS  (Compulsory  Retirement  Scheme). \nThese officers would have certainly put pressure on him, \nits  effect  could  be  felt  in  the  house  also.  In  the  month \nof  September  2006  he  was  seen  tensed  and  on  asking \ntold  that  company  made  VRS  Scheme  applicable  and  it \nwill be continued till 30.09.06, but he is being compelled \nto  accept  the  same  forcefully  and  is  being  harassed.  In \nthis work the main role was of Shri Venkatesh RMM HLL \nNorthern India, Shri Kalol Chakraborty RPM HLL Northern \nIndia,  Shri  Rupendra  Yadav,  RSM  Northern  India,  Shri \nNipun Aneja ASM  Purvanchal,  ZI Alvi, AE  and  Manish \nSharma, AE and others. Because it is was introduced as \na VRS scheme therefore my brother Late Rajiv Jain and \nhis many other colleagues did not accept the same. After \nthe month of September in the month of October 2006 the \ncruelty of some of the officers increased to more extent and \nwhen objected to, these persons threatened even through \nantisocial  elements  whereas  my  brother  Late  Rajiv  Jain \nwas very peaceful nature. Before coming to the programme \norganized by the company in Lucknow (Hotel Amber and \nHotel Deep Palace) on 2nd and 3rd November 2006 he \nsaid that he will keep his defense strongly and will satisfy \nthe officers and will take out permanent solution. Sir, with \nthe  aforesaid  basis  he  came  to  Lucknow  from  Varanasi \non  01.11.06  and  stayed  in  Hotel Amber  along  with  his \ncolleagues. On 02.11.06 he talked at home through phone. \nOn 03.11.06 my brother was again harassed unnecessarily. \n\nNipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh\f1488 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nAfter that those officers handed over some letter to him. \nMy  brother  Late  Rajiv  Jain  told  about  his  difficulty  at \nhome  also  on  telephone  on  03.11.06.  Then  they  came \nto their hotel from meeting. Afterwards his dead body is \nfound in the room. Sir, I have the complete belief that for \ninstigating my brother Shri Rajiv Jain to take such a weak \nstep  following  officer  and  other  officers  of  the  company \nare mainly responsible.\n\n1.  Shri Venki Vekatesh R.M. North India, H.L.L.\n\n2.  Shri Kaloi Chakraborty R.P.M. North India, H.L.L.\n\n3.  Shri Rupendra Yadav, R.S.M. North India H.L.L.\n\n4.  Shri Z.I. Alwi, A.E. H.L.L.\n\n5.  Shri Meenish Sharma, A.E. H.L.L.\n\n6.  Shri Nipun Aneja, A.S.M. Eastern U.P. H.L.L.\n\nThis fact is also important because even after occurrence \nof such a painful incident no officer of company till date \nhas come in front in any manner Sir, it is requested that on \nwriting the report kindly initiate the necessary proceedings. \nMy  bhabhi  and  me  unlucky  brother  who  are  in  pain  will \nbe very grateful to you.”\n\n4.  Thus, it appears on plain reading of the First Information Report that \nthe  appellants  before  us  in  their  capacity  as  senior  officers  of  the \ncompany  had  convened  a  meeting  on  3  November  2006  with  the \nemployees of the company at Hotel Amber in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. \nThe deceased alongwith his colleagues was present in the meeting. \nThe gravamen of the charge is that the company wanted around fifty \nto  sixty  office  employees  to  opt  for  Voluntary  Retirement  Scheme \n(VRS). As  all  those  employees  were  not  ready  to  opt  for  the  VRS \nscheme,  they  were  being  harassed  in  some  manner  or  the  other. \nIt is further alleged that in the course of the meeting the deceased \nwas humiliated by the appellants & he felt very bad about it.\n\n5. \n\nIn  the  course  of  investigation,  the  police  recorded  statements  of \nsome of the colleagues of the deceased who were also present in \nthe  meeting.  We  may  look  into  just  two  statements  in  this  regard. \nThe first statement is of Sudhir Kumar Ojha. In his police statement, \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1489\n\nhe has stated the following:\n\n“Shri Sudhir Kumar Ojha son of Late Shri Shyam Kishore \nOjha resident of Om Niwas Civil Lines P.S. Kotwali District \nSultanpur  on  oath  stated  that  I  and  Shri  Rajeev  are \nworking in Hindustan Lever Limited Company at the post \nof salesman. I was appointed as salesman and Shri Rajiv \nJain  was  posted  in  Varanasi.  On  01.11.06  we  came  in \nAmbar Hotel and both of us stayed in no.244. On 03.11.06 \nwe  reached  at  Deep  Palace  Hotel  at  around  09:30 AM \nfor the purpose of participating in meeting. First of all we \nwere preferred by Nipun Aneja, ZILV, Vijay Dev Sharma, \nManish Sharma, M.A. Khan and others in the meeting. In \nthe meeting of last month for all the salesman the voluntary \nretirement  scheme  of  Districts  of  East  Uttar  Pradesh  for \nall the salesman is brought in front and the same is done \nthrough the Unnav company which is not accepted by most \nof the persons. In the meeting which took place now also \nmost of the salesman were made as responsible for lower \ncategory from past on making changes in profile which is \nbeyond our status. Shri Rajiv Jain started crying on being \ntensed in the meeting. In this manner the company started \nthe procedure of changing the VRS to CRS. Meeting came \nto  an  end  at  around  5:30  PM.  I  went  on  the  residence \nof  my  sister  Sudha.  From  there  at  8  PM  returned  back \nin  hotel  and  came  in  room  no.123  and  along  with  my \ncolleague Keshav Tiwari son of Shri Rakesh Tiwari along \nwith Pandey General Store Kachehri Chowk Bier reached \nin room no.244. Room was closed from inside. Efforts are \nmade to get it open and called up through telephone. But \nno reply was there then we contacted the Manager of the \nhotel who on making efforts at his own level Subhash Nath \nEmployee was sent inside from the bathroom of the room \nand got the door opened and saw that Shri Rajiv Jain tied \nthe knot of bed sheet and was hanging from fan. He was \nchecked and found that he is dead. Information about all \nthis is given during the course of meeting to M. Venkatesh \non  03.11.06.  Letter  which  was  given  to  Rajiv  Jain  in  the \nmeeting is found in his room. I am giving the same to you.”\n\nNipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh\f1490 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n6.  The  second  statement  is  one  of  Shri  Jayant  Kumar  Ghatak.  His \n\npolice statement reads thus:\n\n“Jayant  Kumar  Ghatak  son  of  Late  Vijay  Kumar \nGhatak  resident  of  124  Sohaptia  Bagh  police  station \nDaraganj  Allahabad  on  oath  stated  that  on  03.07.06   \nthe panchayatnama was filled of Rajiv Jain who committed \nsuicide in Amber Hotel and the dead body was sent on duly \nstamping and sealing to the constables for the purpose of \npost-mortem. Signatures were taken.\n\nStatement of witness -\n\nJayant Kumar Ghatak son of Late Shri Vijay Kumar Ghatak \nresident  of  184  Sohaptia  Kaam Allahabad  police  station \nGeorge Town District Allahabad on oath stated with regard \nto his colleague Late Rajiv Jain with regard to the incident \ncommitted along with him then he stated on oath during \nthe  course  of  enquiry  that  each  month  meeting  of  one \nday  -  one  day  is  done  with  regard  to  sales  by  officers \nwhich took place one day in each month but this month \ntwo days the meeting was called. On first day meeting took \nplace in Amber Hotel, in which the talks were held by the \nofficers who came in the meeting with regard to sales but \non 03.11.06 the meeting which was held in Deep Palace, \nthat  was  called  for  harassing  the  employees  salesman \nwho are not taking VRS and for the purpose of doing their \ndemotion.  In  the  meeting  area  sales  manager  M.  Nipun \nAneja,  ZILV,  Manish  Sharma,  M.H.  Khan  and  Vijay  Dev \ncame  in  the  meeting.  In  the  meeting  the  meeting  was \ncalled of the person not taking the VRS and of sales man. \nIn the meeting 1. R.R. Kapoor, 2. Keshav Tiwari 3. R.N. \nPrasad, 4. R.N. Shukl, 5. Sudhir Ojha, 5. B.N. Gupta 9. \nHari  Shyam  Mishra  2.  Rajiv  Jain  and  I  was  in  the  staff \nmeeting. In the meeting all the sales men were called by \nnumber  who  have  not  taken  the  VRS  and  while  stating \nthe  bad  about  them  M.  Nipun  Aneja,  Manish  Sharma \nand  ZILV  were  given  one  transfer  letter  for  the  post  of \nmerchandising which was post lower from salesman and \nthose employees who were not accepting the transfer letter, \ntheir life will be ruined and will be dispelled from service. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1491\n\nVijay Dev Nani and M.A. Khan who were present in the \nmeeting did not said bad to anyone and nor provide mental \nharassment.  They  were  only  present.  Scheme  of  VRS \nwas launched by Kalol Chakravarty and Rupendra Yadav \nwho  came  one  year  back  for  the  purpose  of  launching \nthe  same  who  harassed  us  a  lot,  that  the  one  who  will \nnot  take  the  VRS  will  be  dispelled.  M.  Banki  Venkatesh \nfrom whose signature transfer was done in merchandising \nfrom  salesman.  They  harassed  us  mentally  earlier  for \nthe purpose of taking of VRS. On not taking the VRS on \nforcefully harassing mentally on doing their signature done \nour transfer in merchandising from sales man. The letter \nwas given by M. Nipun Aneja, Manish Sharma and ZILV. \nOn calling Rajiv Jain in last in meeting gave the transfer \nletter  of  merchandising  from  salesman  and  stated  bad \nbecause  of  which  on  being  aggrieved  Rajiv  Jain  started \ncrying  in  meeting  all  only.  We  were  very  tensed. After \nending of the meeting all the persons came to Amber Hotel, \nbut in his room ...... Sudhir Ojha on going at the place of \nhis sister Sudha came alone in rickshaw and on going in \nhis room directly strangulated himself on putting the loop \nwith fan and committed suicide on closing the door. We \nwhile  leaving  the  hotel  knocked  the  door  then  the  room \nwas closed from inside then though he might be getting \nfresh alone therefore we returned back to Allahabad. On \nway  near  Raibarelly  received  the  information  on  phone \nthen returned back to hotel then on sending inside from \nwindow  the  son  of  Subhash  Chandra  Verma  the  room \nwas got opened, there dead body was hanging with fan \nand they died. And after panchayatnama the dead body \nwas sent for the purpose of proceedings for the purpose \nof  postmortem.  Despite  of  information  to  the  officers  of \ndepartment no one came to Hotel Amber. Officers of our \ndepartment harassed Rajiv Jain and us that at last Rajiv \nJain  committed  suicide.  This  is  my  statement  which  is \nrecorded in the court.”\n\n7.  Thus,  the  two  police  statements  referred  to  above  if  read  closely \nreveals  that  the  three  appellants  in  their  capacity  as  high-ranking \nofficers  of  Hindustan  Lever  Ltd.  had  convened  a  meeting  in  Hotel \n\nNipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh\f1492 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nAmber  with  the  employees  of  the  company  serving  as  salesmen. \nThis  meeting  was  convened  to  discuss  about  the  sales  of  the \ncompany. On the next day, i.e., 03.11.2006, the meeting as alleged \nwas convened only to harass those salesmen who were not ready \nto  opt  for  VRS.  In  this  meeting  as  alleged  some  of  the  salesmen \nincluding the deceased were issued letter to undertake the work of \nmerchandising. This  was  not  liked  by  all  the  employees. They  felt \nthat after putting in 23 years of service as salesmen, they could not \nhave been asked to undertake the work of merchandising. Again, as \nalleged, this was done by way of punishment for refusing to voluntarily \nretire. It is not the case that just one person, i.e., the deceased was \ntargeted & humiliated. \n\n8.  On the basis of the aforesaid statements, the police thought fit to file \ncharge-sheet. The filing of the charge-sheet ultimately culminated in \nthe criminal proceedings.\n\n9.  As the High Court declined to quash the proceedings, the appellants \n\nare here before this Court.\n\n10.  Before  we  proceed  to  say  anything  on  the  merits  of  the  case,  we \nshould  look  into  the  line  of  reasoning  assigned  by  the  High  Court \nin its impugned order while rejecting the petition seeking quashing \nof the criminal proceedings. The High Court in its impugned order \nin paragraphs 31, 39, 40 and 46 respectively has observed thus:\n\n\"31.  In  the  present  case,  the  employees  Sudhir  Kumar \nOjha  and  Jayant  Kumar  Ghatak  have  specifically \nstated  the  humiliation  which  was  faced  by  the \ndeceased due to the action of Z.I. Alvi, Nipun Aneja \nand Manish Kumar Sharma coupled with humiliation \nwhich was continuously being faced by the deceased \ndue  to  the  behavior  of  Rupendra  Yadav  and  Kallol \nChakaraborty.  There  is  direct  nexus  between  the \ndeliberations that took place in the meeting and the \nsuicide committed by the deceased just thereafter.\n\nxxx\n\nxxx\n\nxxx\n\n39.  Coming  to  the  factual  matrix  of  the  present  case, \nthe  statement  of  Sunita  Jain  wife  of  the  deceased \nis  relevant  &  attains  importance  with  reference  to \nthe  statements  of  Sudhir  Kumar  Ojha  and  Jayant \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1493\n\nKumar Ghatak. Sudhir Kumar Ojha and Jayant Kumar \nGhatak have specifically stated that the deceased was \nhumiliated in the meeting. He was given a letter to \ndo the job on a lower cadre post in merchandising. \nDeceased was working in the establishment for the \nlast about 23 years. Without any inquiry or leveling \nany  charge  against  him,  he  was  asked  to  work  on \na  lower  post,  although  it  is  true  that  it  is  a  matter \nbetween  the  employer  and  employee,  which  is \ncontractual obligation.\n\n40.  Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  has  contended \nthat the contractual relationship between the employer \nand  employee  in  the  company  was  such  that  the \nemployer could have asked the employees to work \non any post. It is further contended that in the list of \nemployees who had opted the VRS scheme, name \nof  the  deceased  was  not  there.  Deceased  had  not \nopted  for  voluntary  retirement.  This  aspect  attains \nimportance.\n\n46. \n\nxxx\n\nxxx\n\nxxx\n\nIn  the  present  case,  the  deceased  was  so  much \nhumiliated  publicly  that,  just  after  the  meeting,  he \nwent to his room and committed suicide. There is a \ndirect link between the meeting and the commission \nof  suicide.  Deceased  was  being  continuously \nhumiliated and tortured to either accept the VRS or \nto accept the letter of working in the merchandising \ndepartment, which is in lower grade than the grade \nwherein the deceased was functioning. It is the cause \nwhich  instigated  the  deceased  to  take  the  extreme \nstep. The accused Nipun Aneja, Z.I. Alvi and Manish \nKumar  Sharma  are  the  officers  of  the  employer-\ncompany,  who  were  present  in  the  meeting,  had \nevery reason to humiliate the deceased to an extent \nthat  he  should  accept  their  dictates,  otherwise  the \ndeceased  would  have  not  taken  the  extreme  step. \nIn this reference, statement of wife of the deceased \nalso attains importance wherein she has stated that \n\nNipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh\f1494 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nthe deceased was under continuous mental pressure \nand  depression  due  to  behaviour  of  the  accused. \nSpecific  allegations  have  been  levelled  by  Jayant \nKumar  Ghatak  and  Sunil  Kumar  Ojha  against  the \naccused petitioners Nipun Aneja, Z.I. Alvi and Manish \nMukar Sharma.”\n\n11.  Thus, according to the High Court, the deceased committed suicide on \naccount of instigation in the form of harassment & humiliation at the \nend of the appellants. The question is in what manner the appellants \ncould  be  said  to  have  instigated  the  deceased  that  ultimately  led \nhim to commit suicide. \n\n12.  Prima facie, it appears that two things weighed with the High Court. \nFirst, the two police statements of the colleagues of the deceased \nreferred to above & secondly, the act on the part of the appellants \nin handing over the letter to all the salesmen present in the meeting \nincluding  the  deceased  containing  instructions  therein  to  do  the \nwork of merchandising. This according to the High Court amounted \nto demotion.\n\n13.  The  law  governing  Section  306  of  the  IPC  is  well  settled.  Section \n\n306 of the IPC reads as under:-\n\n\"360.  Abetment  of  suicide.  ─If  any  person  commits \nsuicide,  whoever  abets  the  commission  of  such \nsuicide,  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  of \neither  description  for  a  term  which  may  extend  to \nten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”\n\n14.  Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section \n306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment \nof a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:-\n\n\"107.  Abetment  of  a  thing.─ A  person  abets  the  doing \n\nof a thing, who─ \n\nFirst. ─ Instigates any person to do that thing; or \n\nSecondly.─ Engages with one or more other person \nor persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that \nthing,  if  an  act  or  illegal  omission  takes  place  in \npursuance  of  that  conspiracy,  and  in  order  to  the \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1495\n\ndoing of that thing; or \n\nThirdly.─  Intentionally  aids,  by  any  act  or  illegal \nomission, the doing of that thing. \n\nExplanation    1.  —    A    person    who    by    wilful \nmisrepresentation,  or  by  wilful  concealment  of \na  material  fact  which  he  is  bound  to  disclose, \nvoluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause \nor procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate \nthe doing of that thing. \n\nExplanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the \ntime of the commission of an act, does anything in \norder  to  facilitate  the  commission  of  that  act,  and \nthereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to \naid the doing of that act.”\n\n15. \n\nIn the decision of this Court in case of Netai Dutta v. State of West \nBengal, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 659, an employee of a company \nwas transferred from one place to another. However, he failed to join. \nThereafter, he sent a letter of resignation expressing his grievance \nagainst stagnancy to salary and unpleasant situation. The company \naccepted the resignation. Thereafter, the said employee committed \nsuicide. He left behind a suicide note, alleging therein that Netai Dutta \nand, one Paramesh Chatterjee engaged him in several wrong doings. \nThe same was alleged as, torture. The brother of the deceased filed \ncomplaint, against Netai Dutta and others under Section 306 of the \nIPC. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta declined to \nquash the complaint. In appeal, however, this Court while quashing \nthe complaint, at paragraphs 5 and 6 observed as under:\n\n\"5.  There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide \nnote that the present appellant had caused any harm \nto  him  or  was  in  any  way  responsible  for  delay  in \npaying  salary  to  deceased  Pranab  Kumar  Nag.  It \nseems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied \nwith  the  working  conditions  at  the  work  place.  But, \nit  may  also  be  noticed  that  the  deceased  after  his \ntransfer  in  1999  had  never  joined  the  office  at  160 \nB.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself \n\nNipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh\f1496 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nfor  a  period  of  two  years  and  that  the  suicide  took \nplace on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said that the present \nappellant had in any way instigated the deceased to \ncommit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide \nof  Pranab  Kumar  Nag. An  offence  under  Section \n306. IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for \nthe commission of the crime. The parameters of the \n“abetment” have been stated in Section 107 of the \nPenal Code, 1860. Section 107 says that a person \nabets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person \nto do that thing : or engages with one or more other \nperson or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of \nthat thing, if an act or illegal omission taken place in \npursuance of that conspiracy, or the person should \nhave intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. \nThe explanation to. Section 107 says that any willful \nmisrepresentation or willful concealment of a material-\nfact which he is bound to disclose, may also come \nwithin the contours of “abetment”\n\n(Emphasis supplied)\n\n6. \n\nIn the suicide note, except referring to the name of \nthe appellant at two places, there is no reference of \nany-act or incidence where by the appellant herein is \nalleged to have, committed any willful act or omission \nor  intentionally  aided  or  instigated  the  deceased) \nPranab Kumar Nag to committing the act of suicide. \nThere is no case that the appellant has played any \npart or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately \ninstigated  or  resulted  in  the  commission  of  suicide \nby deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.”\n\n16.  This Court, thereafter at para 7, inter alia, observed that—\n\n\"7.  ….The  prosecution  initiated  against  the  appellant \nwould only result in sheer harassment to the appellant \nwithout any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned \nsingle Judge seriously erred in holding that the first \ninformation  report  against  the  appellant  disclosed \nthe  elements  of  a  cognizable  offence.  There  was \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1497\n\nabsolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant \nherein.”\n\n17.  This  Court  in  Geo  Varghese  v.  State  of  Rajasthan  and  another \nreported in (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the provisions of \nSection 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under \nSection 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:-\n\n\"14.  Section  306  of  IPC  makes  abetment  of  suicide  a \ncriminal offence and prescribes punishment for the \nsame.\n\n. . . . \n\n15.  The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ \nis  to  bring  about  or  initiate,  incite  someone  to  do \nsomething. This Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State \nof Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, has defined the \nword ‘instigate’ as under:- \n\n\"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, \nincite or encourage to do “an act”.”\n\n16.  The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-\nrelation  with  Section  306  IPC  has  been  discussed \nrepeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena \nVs.  Vijay  Kumar  Mahajan  and Anr  (2010)  12  SCC \n190, it was observed as under:- \n\n“25.  Abetment  involves  a  mental  process  of \ninstigating  a  person  or  intentionally  aiding  a \nperson  in  doing  of  a  thing.  Without  a  positive \nact  on  the  part  of  the  accused  to  instigate  or \naid  in  committing  suicide,  conviction  cannot \nbe  sustained.  The  intention  of  the  legislature \nand  the  ratio  of  the  cases  decided  by  the \nSupreme Court is clear that in order to convict \na person under Section 306 IPC there has to \nbe a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It \nalso requires an active act or direct act which \nled the deceased to commit suicide seeing no \noption  and  that  act  must  have  been  intended \nto push the deceased into such a position that \n\nNipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh\f1498 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nhe committed suicide.””\n\n18.  This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of \nPolice reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary \ningredients of Section 306 of the IPC in detail, observed as under:- \n\n\"7.  The essential ingredients of the offence under Section \n306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of \nthe accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased \nto commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, \ninsulting  the  deceased  by  using  abusive  language \nwill not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. \nThere should be evidence capable of suggesting that \nthe  accused  intended  by  such  act  to  instigate  the \ndeceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients \nof instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, \naccused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” \n\n19.  This Court in Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana reported in \n(2019) 17 SCC 301, held that in order to convict an accused under \nSection  306  of  the  IPC,  the  state  of  mind  to  commit  a  particular \ncrime  must  be  visible  with  regard  to  determining  the  culpability.  It \nwas observed as under:-\n\n\"16. \n\nIn cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must \nbe a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to \nthe commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed \nthat the question of cause of a suicide, particularly \nin the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, \nremains  a  vexed  one,  involving  multifaceted  and \ncomplex attributes of human behavior and responses/\nreactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of \nsuicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and \nconvincing  proof  of  the  act(s)  of  incitement  to  the \ncommission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere \nallegation of harassment of the deceased by another \nperson would not suffice unless there be such action \non the part of the accused which compels the person \nto commit suicide; and such an offending action ought \nto be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether \na person has abetted in the commission of suicide \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1499\n\nby another or not, could only be gathered from the \nfacts and circumstances of each case. \n\n16.1.  For  the  purpose  of  finding  out  if  a  person  has \nabetted  commission  of  suicide  by  another;  the \nconsideration  would  be  if  the  accused  is  guilty \nof  the  act  of  instigation  of  the  act  of  suicide. As \nexplained  and  reiterated  by  this  Court  in  the \ndecisions above referred, instigation means to goad, \nurge  forward,  provoke,  incite  or  encourage  to  do \nan  act.  If  the  persons  who  committed  suicide  had \nbeen  hypersensitive  and  the  action  of  accused  is \notherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly \ncircumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not \nbe  safe  to  hold  the  accused  guilty  of  abetment  of \nsuicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his \nacts and by his continuous course of conduct creates \na  situation  which  leads  the  deceased  perceiving \nno other option except to commit suicide, the case \nmay fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. \nIf the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the \nself-esteem  and  self-respect  of  the  victim,  which \neventually  draws the victim to commit suicide,  the \naccused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. \nThe question of mens rea on the part of the accused \nin such cases would be examined with reference to \nthe actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the \nacts and deeds are only of such nature where the \naccused  intended  nothing  more  than  harassment \nor  snap  show  of  anger,  a  particular  case  may  fall \nshort of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, \nif  the  accused  kept  on  irritating  or  annoying  the \ndeceased  by  words  or  deeds  until  the  deceased \nreacted or was provoked, a particular case may be \nthat of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter \nof delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case \nis required to be examined on its own facts, while \ntaking  note  of  all  the  surrounding  factors  having \nbearing on the actions and psyche of the accused \nand the deceased.”\n\nNipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh\f1500 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n20.  This  Court  in  Mariano  Anto  Bruno  &  another  v.  The  Inspector \nof Police reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, Criminal Appeal \nNo. 1628 of 2022 decided on 12th October, 2022, after referring to \nthe above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under \nSection 306 of the IPC observed as under:-\n\n\"44.  …It  is  also  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  cases  of \nalleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of \ndirect or indirect acts of incitement to the commission \nof  suicide.  Merely  on  the  allegation  of  harassment \nwithout their being any positive action proximate to \nthe  time  of  occurrence  on  the  part  of  the  accused \nwhich  led  or  compelled  the  person  to  commit \nsuicide,  conviction  in  terms  of  Section  306  IPC  is \nnot sustainable.”\n\n21.  The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC \n(abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed \nby the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement \nby the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as \nthe extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great \ndisturbance  to  the  psychological  imbalance  of  the  deceased  such \nincitement  can  be  divided  into  two  broad  categories.  First,  where \nthe  deceased  is  having  sentimental  ties  or  physical  relations  with \nthe accused and the second category would be where the deceased \nis  having  relations  with  the  accused  in  his  or  her  official  capacity. \nIn the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the \nhot  exchange  of  words  may  result  into  immediate  psychological \nimbalance,  consequently  creating  a  situation  of  depression,  loss \nof charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of \nexpectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, \ne.g., when there is relation of husband  and wife, mother and son, \nbrother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, \nwhere sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the \ncase  of  second  category  the  tie  is  on  account  of  official  relations, \nwhere  the  expectations  would  be  to  discharge  the  obligations  as \nprovided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as \nprovided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental \ntie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being \ndifferent nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former \ncategory leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1501\n\nby  and  large,  the  expectations  and  obligations  are  prescribed  by \nlaw, rules, policies and regulations.\n\n22.  The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make \nan endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record \nwhether  there  is  anything  to  indicate  even  prima  facie  that  the \naccused  intended  the  consequences  of  the  act,  i.e.,  suicide.  Over \na  period  of  time,  the  trend  of  the  courts  is  that  such  intention  can \nbe read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial. The problem \nis  that  the  courts  just  look  into  the  factum  of  suicide  and  nothing \nmore. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts \nis wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. \nFor example, whether the accused had the common intention under \nSection  34  of  the  IPC  could  be  gathered  only  after  a  full-fledged \ntrial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the \ngenesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, \nthe role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment \nof suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly \nfrom the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how \nto apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide \nto the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to \nunderstand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of \nabetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We \ndo  understand  and  appreciate  the  feelings  and  sentiments  of  the \nfamily members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their \npart if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. \nHowever, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look \ninto the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations \nhave been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not \nput to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them. \n\n23. \n\nIn  the  case  on  hand,  the  entire  approach  of  the  High  Court  could \nbe said to be incorrect. The High Court should have examined the \nmatter keeping in mind the following: \n\n(a)  On the date of the meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did the appellants \ncreate a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading \nthe deceased to see suicide as the only escape? To ascertain \nthis,  the  two  statements  of  the  colleagues  of  the  deceased \nreferred to by us were sufficient. \n\n(b)  Are  the  appellants  accused  of  exploiting  the  emotional \n\nNipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh\f1502 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n(c) \n\n(d) \n\nvulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or \nunderserving of life leading him to commit suicide? \n\nIs it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences, \nsuch as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent \nthat he believed suicide was the only way out? \n\nIs it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged \nthe reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide \ndue to public humiliation & loss of dignity.\n\n24.  The  aforesaid  are  just  illustrations  that  could  be  considered  as \nabetment under the law in the facts & circumstances of a given case.\n\n25. \n\nIn the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that putting the \nappellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission \nof suicide by the deceased will be nothing but abuse of process of \nlaw. In our opinion, no case worth the name against the appellants \nis made out. \n\n26. \n\nIn  the  result,  this  appeal  succeeds  and  is  hereby  allowed.  The \nimpugned  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  is  set  aside.  The \nproceedings of Criminal Case No 11428 of 2007 pending in the court \nof Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow are hereby quashed.\n\n27.  Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.\n\nResult of the case: Appeal allowed.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f"}