SC on Abetment of Suicide: “Harassment Must Leave No Other Alternative” – Tanu Case Reopened

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed charges of abetment of suicide against the appellants in a case involving the tragic death of Tanu. The Court emphasized that harassment must be so grave that it leaves the victim with no option but to end their life, reaffirming the necessity of proving intention to abet suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The verdict was delivered by a three-judge Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar, and K.V. Viswanathan. The Court not only dismissed the charges but also ordered a fresh investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh. This decision comes amid doubts regarding the fairness and depth of the original probe.

Key Judicial Observations

• The Court held that abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC requires a specific act of abetment under Section 107 IPC, which includes instigation, aiding, or intentionally facilitating suicide.
• The Bench referred to previous rulings, notably:
  • Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628
  • Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
• The Court emphasized:
  "The alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. In cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide."
• It noted that verbal abuse alone does not constitute abetment, unless it directly pushes the deceased into committing suicide.

Case Background

• The case arose from the suspected relationship between Ziaul Rahman (deceased) and Tanu (deceased).
• Ziaul Rahman, son of the first appellant, was allegedly beaten by Tanu's relatives, leading to his death.
• The appellant lodged an FIR against Tanu’s family.
• Following Ziaul’s death, the appellants allegedly harassed and humiliated Tanu, blaming her for their son's demise.
• Tanu subsequently died by suicide, and her cousin filed a case for abetment of suicide against the appellants.
• The High Court refused to quash the charges, holding that Tanu was hypersensitive, deeply depressed, and felt humiliated, establishing a proximate link between her suicide and the accused’s actions.

Supreme Court’s Findings

• The charge sheet relied solely on the complainant’s statements and failed to explore alternative causes of suicide.
• The Bench observed:
  “We are today left with the one-sided version of the complainant R-2. Was there anything more sinister? Even if it was suicide, what was the real cause? Was the deceased Tanu distraught with what happened to her friend Ziaul Rahman? Considering the undercurrents and the disapproval of the relationship, was there any instigation for the suicide from any other quarter?”
• The Court found that the investigation lacked depth and only supported the complainant’s version.
• It further noted that verbal exchanges alone do not establish abetment unless they create a situation where the victim sees no alternative but death.

Quashing of Charges

• The Supreme Court held that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC were not satisfied.
• The ruling stated:
  "The surrounding circumstances, particularly the prior lodgment of the FIR by the first appellant against the family of Tanu for the death of his son Ziaul Rahman, indicate an element of desperation on the part of the respondent no. 2 to somehow implicate the appellants."
• The Court ruled that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of legal process.

Reinvestigation Ordered

• The Supreme Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the unnatural death of Tanu.
• The SIT will be led by a Deputy Inspector General (DIG)-rank officer.
• The Court authorized the SIT to treat the original FIR (Crime No. 367 of 2022, PS Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur) as an unnatural death investigation.
• The SIT may re-register the FIR if necessary.
• The investigation report must be submitted to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover within two months.
• The Court emphasized that the reinvestigation should be independent and not influenced by the current judgment.

Case Title: AYYUB vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH., Diary No. - 21115/2024

Attachment: