Attempt to abet suicide not an offence without death: HC clarifies legal position

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that an attempt to abet suicide does not constitute an offence under Sections 306 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Death by suicide is a necessary ingredient to establish the offences.

Advertisement

The ruling by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the high court came in case of a woman who survived a suicide attempt and subsequently filed a case against her in-laws accusing them of persistent harassment and cruelty.

The petitioner alleged that respondents, including her husband and father-in-law, repeatedly urged her to end her life leading to a serious deterioration in her mental health and culminating in her suicide attempt. The matter was placed before Justice Brar’s Bench after the woman challenged an order passed dated August 5, 2021, passed by Panipat Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the respondents-accused were discharged.

Taking note of the legal position, Justice Brar asserted the essential condition for invoking Section 306 of the IPC on abetment to suicide was not met since the petitioner had survived. The court observed that Section 511, pertaining to the punishment for attempting to commit offences, could not be applied in this context unless the principal offence under Section 306 was established.

Justice Brar noted that charging the respondents with an attempt to abet suicide under Section 511 would be legally untenable and absurd, given that the primary factor—death—was not present. “Since the petitioner survived the suicide attempt, the threshold of Section 306 IPC is not breached. As such, it would be absurd to charge the respondents with an attempt to abet suicide by invoking Section 511 IPC, when the prime factor itself is not satisfied”.

Justice Brar asserted the allegations levied against the respondents fell squarely under the purview of Section 498-A IPC, which dealt with cruelty by a husband or his relatives. Given the existence of a specific provision to address the alleged conduct, the invocation of Section 511 was deemed unnecessary and legally inappropriate.

“The numerous allegations of cruelty levied on respondents are covered by the offence defined under Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, when a separate provision to cover the alleged conduct already exists, Section 511 IPC cannot be invoked”.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Brar asserted the court below had discharged the respondents based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law. The verdict did not warrant interference by the high court. Accordingly, the impugned was upheld.