Supreme Court While Allowing The Appeal In Abetment to Suicide Case; Quashed Proceeding for Offence U/s 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, quashed the order issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra, also known as Prabhat Mishra, versus The State of U.P. & Another. The bench comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta rendered this verdict on March 5th, 2024.

The case originated from an appeal lodged against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated July 26th, 2022. The High Court had dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12691 of 2015 filed by the accused-appellant under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This application sought the quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 6476 of 2005 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. The charges pertained to offenses under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The accused, Prabhat Kumar Mishra, held the position of District Savings Officer in Kannauj District. The case revolved around the suicide of Data Ram, a Senior Clerk at the Child Welfare Board in Fatehgarh, who allegedly took his own life on October 3rd, 2002, by consuming poison at his residence in Mohalla Gwal Toli, Fatehgarh, District-Farrukhabad. Following the filing of FIR No. 249/2002 at P.S. Kotwali, Fatehgarh, an investigation ensued, leading to Charge-sheet No. 253 of 2002 being filed against Mishra.

The accused contended before the High Court that the case solely relied on the suicide note left by the deceased and sought the quashing of the chargesheet against him. However, the High Court rejected the plea.

The Supreme Court, upon review, observed that the prosecution's case hinged entirely on the suicide note, but upon careful examination, found no indication within its contents that could implicate Mishra for abetment, as defined in Section 107 of the IPC. The Court emphasized that for an offense of abetment to suicide to be established, there must be evidence of an act or omission on the part of the accused that falls within the purview of Section 107.

Relying on legal precedents, including Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. and M. Mohan v. State of W.B. (2005) 2 SCC 659, and observing that the circumstances in M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011) 3 SCC 626 are like the one in the case at hand. For reference the quoted paragraphs are reproduced in brief hereunder:

• We would like to deal with the concept of “abetment”. Section 306 of the Code deals with “abetment of suicide” which reads as under: “306.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.
• The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
• In our country, while suicide itself is not an offence considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC.
• “Abetment of a thing” has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 107, which reads 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 doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section 107 reads as under: Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in....

In light of the precedence relied, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has conferred that:

There is no disagreement that the prosecution's case relies entirely on the suicide note left by the deceased before taking their own life, and the Supreme Court concluded that the essential elements required to prosecute Mishra under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were not evident in the charge sheet. Consequently, allowing his prosecution would amount to a severe violation of legal procedure and an abuse of the legal process. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was set aside.

CASE: PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRA v. THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR. BENCH: B.R. GAVAI and SANDEEP MEHTA DOP: 5th March 2024