Why is it in the news?

• The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that police and courts should avoid “unnecessary prosecutions” in workplace-related abetment of suicide cases.
• This ruling emerged from the case of Rajeev Jain, a salesman who died by suicide after alleged harassment from senior officers at his company. On October 3, a Bench of Justices quashed the case against the accused, overturning a previous Allahabad High Court judgment from March 2017.

Understanding Abetment of Suicide

• “Abetment” is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding the commission of an act.
• The punishment for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC can lead to up to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine.
• According to the National Crime Records Bureau, the conviction rate for abetment of suicide cases was 17.5% in 2022, reflecting a decline over the years.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

• The Supreme Court stated that abetment of suicide requires “direct and alarming encouragement/incitement” by the accused. It categorized cases based on the nature of the relationship- “sentimental ties” versus “official capacity.”
• For sentimental ties, the burden of proof may be lower, as ordinary disputes could lead to psychological distress. In official relationships, such as between employer and employee, courts must be cautious to avoid unnecessary prosecutions.
• The court concluded that without evidence of intent to cause the suicide, pursuing a full trial could constitute an abuse of the legal process.

Judicial Precedents

• In M Mohan v The State (2011), the Supreme Court set a high bar for proving abetment of suicide, requiring an active act intended to push the deceased toward suicide.
• In July 2023, the Karnataka High Court upheld proceedings against three individuals accused of abetting the suicide of an LGBT employee, stating that diminishing a sensitive individual’s self-esteem could constitute abetment.
• Similarly, in Ude Singh v State of Haryana (2019), the Supreme Court maintained that establishing abetment depends on specific facts, emphasizing the need for proof of direct or indirect acts inciting suicide.