Vikas Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [February 22, 2024]
Background
This Supreme Court case arose from the suicide of Brijesh Chandra, the father of the appellant, Vikas Chandra. The appellant alleged that respondent No. 2 (the Secretary of the institution where the deceased worked) abetted the suicide by withholding salary and making instigative remarks, which were purportedly referenced in a suicide note left by the deceased. After the police filed a negative final report (closure report), the Magistrate, upon inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, nonetheless issued summons to respondent No. 2 for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Allahabad High Court quashed the summons, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
What constitutes “abetment of suicide” under Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC?
Is a mere statement in a suicide note attributing responsibility to a person sufficient to summon them for trial under Section 306 IPC?
What is the scope of a Magistrate’s power to issue summons after a closure report by the police?
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court reaffirmed that to constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be specific, proximate, and intentional instigation, aid, or abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. Mere allegations or a bald statement in a suicide note, without evidence of direct or indirect instigation or a course of conduct amounting to abetment, is insufficient.
The Supreme Court clarified that a Magistrate is not bound to accept a closure report filed under Section 173(2) CrPC and may proceed to issue summons if sufficient material exists. However, such issuance should not be mechanical; it must be supported by adequate material that prima facie discloses the necessary mens rea (guilty mind) and a causal connection between the accused’s conduct and the suicide.
In this case, the Court found that the suicide note did not contain any explicit or implicit instigation or evidence of a continuing course of conduct by respondent No. 2 that could be said to have driven the deceased to suicide. There was no material to establish the intention or active involvement required for abetment.
The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court’s view that the materials on record did not justify proceeding against respondent No. 2 and that the issuance of summons was not warranted in the absence of the essential elements of abetment.
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to quash the summons issued to respondent No. 2.
The Court reiterated that the criminal process should not be set in motion lightly, especially in sensitive matters like abetment of suicide, unless the statutory requirements are clearly met.
Significance
This judgment underscores that mere attribution of blame in a suicide note, without proximate and intentional instigation or abetment, does not meet the threshold for prosecution under Section 306 IPC.
It reinforces judicial scrutiny at the stage of issuing summons, ensuring that only cases with sufficient prima facie evidence proceed to trial, thereby protecting individuals from unwarranted criminal prosecution.
Citation:
Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2024, [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1223; 2024 INSC 261, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated February 22, 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments