By Neha Choudhary
Introduction
Suicide is a self-destructing crime and the person committing suicide however not dead is an offender in the eyes of law as no one has the right to die as quoted by the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thus gets imprisoned under the Indian penal code which criminalizes suicide.
Thus, a person ‘committing suicide’ or the person ‘abetting’ the crime of suicide is to be held liable under IPC and penalized for the crime committed.
Abetment to suicide is a heinous crime committed when a person himself does not carry out any sin of killing the other person but the death is committed through his involvement, instigation, or encouragement.
The India penal code in Section 306 mentions the crime of abetting suicide and prescribes the punishment for the same.
In today’s time, when people are suffering from depression due to financial issues, or other matters, risk their lives as according to them suicide is the easiest way to get rid of their problems.
Likewise, the rate of abetting the suicide of a person has been seen to be rising in past few years and as per the records, a lot of cases have been filed for the same. There was a whole social media protest was going live on news channels when the shocking news of the death of Sushant Singh Rajput due to abetment broke out on every channel.
There have been a lot of cases where the celebrity commits suicide leaving the suicide note and subsequently their family members lodging FIR under abetment to suicide against the accused.
Recently, there has been an abetment to suicide case which got reopened and the Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami got arrested for abetting the suicide of a 53-year-old interior designer.
What was the Arnab Goswami’s Case?
Lately, there has been a case in the limelight for a very long time when on 4th November, Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami got detained by the Maharashtra police about the case which was closed in 2018 for abetting the suicide of a 53-year-old interior designer under Section 34 and Section 306 of IPC which quotes that, “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Arnab Goswami was dragged from his house by 20 armed policemen. He along with three other accused was confined by the police as they were charged with abatement of the suicide of the architect as he committed suicide due to non-payment of the dues.
This case was in the news when in 2018; an Interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud Naik were found dead at their bungalow in Alibaug and according to the medical reports it was revealed by the police that it was Anvay who committed suicide and not his mother as she was choked till death.
It was after an FIR was lodged against Arnab Goswami and the other accused based on the victim’s suicide note that the shocking news about the journalist came out on every news channel.
In the suicide note allegedly written by the victim, Anvay, it was mentioned that they have taken the step of committing suicide due to the non-payment of the dues by the three large companies which included Arnab Goswami along with Feroz Shah of Skimedia and Niteish Sarda of Smartworks who owned Rs 83 lakh, Rs 4 crore and Rs 55 lakh respectively.
However, the accusations by the victim’s family were completely denied by the accused and stated that he had paid the debts.
In 2019, after the due investigation, the case was closed by the police as they did not find any evidence against the accused.
However, in May this year, the case was reopened when Anvay’s daughters approached the concerned authorities and seek to reopen the case as the accused were released wrongfully even though their names were mentioned on the suicide note, and according to her; the investigation had not been rightfully done as the facts regarding paid dues were not investigated. Thus, the case was reopened and Goswami was dragged from his home.
He was arrested and assaulted by the police and detained for 14 days under judicial custody. However, he was released by the supreme court due to lack of evidence.
Supreme Court Judgement
In the case of Arnab Goswami Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.[1], the Supreme Court in its judgment quashed the arrest memo based on which the appellant had been arrested, the appellant moved to Supreme Court under Article 32 and thus the SC issued the writ of Habeas Corpus as it was claimed that he was illegally detained by the concerned police even after the case was closed and the closure report had been accepted by the magistrate and quashed the FIR filed against the journalist.
On 30th June 2020, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court suspended all the proceedings while entertaining the petition filed under Article 226, 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CR.P.C. and restrained the state from taking extreme steps which are coercive against the appellant.
According to the judgment, on 26th May 2020, the communication was passed from the Home Department of the State of Maharashtra to Deputy Inspector General of Police, mentioning the transfer of Arnab Goswami’s case to the crime investigation department for reinvestigation as the case reopened.
On 15th October 2020, the Crime Investigation Branch commenced the investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrP.C. about the case registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Moreover, on 4th November 2020, at 7:45 am the appellant got arrested and at 2:37 pm, filed a Writ Petition invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant before the Bombay High Court.
On 4th November 2020, the police custody was declined and the appellant was remanded to judicial custody till 18th November 2020.
On 27th November 2020, the Supreme Court of India gave the judgment regarding Arnab Goswami’s case and stated the reasons for releasing him on bail. The court had certain stringent observations during the proceedings of the case.
The Court stated that for an offense of abetting suicide, there must exist a direct or indirect incitement to the commission of a crime; action of the accused of instigating or doing an act facilitating the commission of the crime. The SC held that the “prima facie evaluation of the FIR does not establish the ingredients of the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.”
While observing the facts of the case the court observed that, “the first segment of Section 107 defines abetment as the instigation of a person; the second segment defines it with reference to engaging in a conspiracy, the third segment defines the abetment as intentionally aiding in a crime.
These provisions have been construed specifically in the context of Section 306 to which a reference is necessary in order to furnish the legal foundation for assessing the contents of the FIR.”
And thus the court mentioned the cases where the same had been construed i.e. State of West Bengal Vs Orilal Jaiswal[2], Randhir Singh Vs State of Punjab[3], Kishori Lal Vs The State of MP[4] and Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami Vs The state of Gujarat[5].
While dealing with the provisions of Section 107 and Section 306 of the IPC, the Court observed that “In order to bring out an offense under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required.
The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offense under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for the offense under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.”
While mentioning another important aspect i.e. the suicide note, the only evidence, in this case, the court said that the suicide note was written by the victim express his state of anguish and thus cannot be said that as there was something intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased had committed suicide and thus while observing this, the court quashed the FIR.
The court had also observed that “Human liberty is a precious constitutional value. The court must be construed as an aid to preserve the constitutional value of liberty. The writ of liberty runs through the fabric of the Constitution.
The need to ensure the fair investigation of crime is undoubtedly important in itself, because it protects at one level the rights of the victim and, at a more fundamental level, the societal interest in ensuring that crime is investigated and dealt with in accordance with the law.
On the other hand, the misuse of the criminal law is a matter of which the High Court and the lower courts in this country must be alive.”
Furthermore, “Courts must be alive to the need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring that the due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid to it. Equally, it is the duty of courts across the spectrum – the district judiciary, the High Courts, and the Supreme Court – to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens.”
While reserving the judgment of the case, the court issued interim bail to the accused.
Conclusion
The news for abetment of suicide has been in the public eye for a lot of cases in recent times. Recently, there has been a case of the Republic TV journalist Arnab Goswami who was arrested under Section 34 and Section 306 of IPC for abetting the suicide of the 53-year-old interior designer.
It was a 2018 closed case that was reopened by the victim’s daughter as according to her investigation was not done lawfully and justice had not prevailed as no charges were being laid onto the accused even though the suicide note was written by the victim mentioned their names.
In May this year, the journalist along with the other accused got arrested and dragged by the police and they were kept under judicial custody for 14 days.
The Supreme Court in its order granted them bail observing certain facts about prima facie and even specified that suicide note cannot interpret the intention on the part of the accused that the deceased committed suicide and thus while observing this, the court quashed the FIR.
References
- Arnab Goswami Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020 ↑
- State of West Bengal Vs Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418 ↑
- Randhir Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 ↑
- Kishori Lal Vs The State of MP, (2007) 10 SCC 797 ↑
- Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami Vs The state of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 ↑