ABETMENT OF SUICIDE


Introduction:
The term 'abetment' refers to the instigation, conspiracy, or aiding in the commission of a crime in the context of suicide, it usually refers to the instigation of the person who has committed suicide. Abetment of suicide is defined under Section 107 of IPC, where as abetment is defined under Section 109 IPC and it is punishable under section 309 IPC. Legally, whether a death is a suicide or not is a factual determination, which means evidence must be evaluated to determine whether or not the death was a suicide.
Suicide abettment is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable. The crime of abetment of suicide has two main elements-
1. a suicide death,
2. the accused's intent to aid in such suicide.
3. involvement of the accused should be direct
In case of M. Mohan v. The State,[1] it was held that there should be a direct link between the accused's actions and the act of committing suicide. It cannot be said that the accused instigated or intentionally aided the commission of suicide if the link is not present.
Recent Developments:
In present time, the media plays a critical role in influencing public opinion. The recent controversy surrounding actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death and the arrest of Arnab Goswami by has raised questions about the legal provisions of abetment of suicide under the criminal statute.
In the case of, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra,[2] a question was raised as to whether the accused was charged with aiding the deceased's suicide because his name was mentioned in the suicide note or not. The deceased had not been paid for the work he had completed, and as a result, he committed suicide under mental stress. The court, however, ruled that there was no direct link to the consequences and that the investigation should be completed.
There is an urgent need to amend the provisions dealing with the offence of abetment in such a way that criminals are not unable to evade the legislations, mend the cases to suit their own needs, and avoid the punishments.
Reference-
[1] M. Mohan v. The State, (2011) 3 SCC 626. Available at: http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content&itemid=99999999&do_pdf=1&id=21267
[2] Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 964
Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/11/27/anvay-naik-suicidehigh-court-abdicated-its-duty-by-failing-to-make-prima-facie-evaluation-of-fir-heres-why-sc-granted-interim-bail-to-arnab-goswami/
[3] https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-abetment-suicide-sushant-singh-rajpu t-rhea-chakraborty-6531014/

SAMAN RIZWAN

https://bulletprofitsmartlink.com/smart-link/76104/4

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DELAYED JUSTICE IN DEATH PENALTY

Image
Justice is rightly called the shield of innocence and guardian of civil rights, as Martin Luther King said, “injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere”.  Justice basically means being just, impartial, fair and right. Justice to the accused/convict is as important as justice to the victim. Capital punishment has been in talk in India and other countries as well. In 1982, in the Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court propounded the “rarest of rare” doctrine and since then, life sentence is the rule and the death sentence the exception. Capital Punishment is awarded in cases related to rape, murder, terrorism and atrocity. In Law Commission of India’s report on Death Penalty in 2015, it was stated that there were 12 crimes under IPC and 22 other laws which prescribed death penalty. In 2019, the NDA government amended the POCSO Act in order to grant death penalty to those who indulge in aggravated sexual assault against children.  William Edward Gl...
Read more

THE SEBI-IBC RIFT

Image
 IBC is a consolidating act aiming to prevent delays. SEBI is a regulatory authority which was established by the SEBI act 1992 to protect the interest of investors and it has the power to encompass the stock exchange regulations. Recently IBC and SEBI has a rift over the issue of jurisdiction. SEBI was ordered by the NCLT to de-attach the property belonging to the corporate firm which was admitted in the corporate insolvency resolution process under IBC. As soon as SEBI came to know about this, they attached the assets of the corporate firm to compensate the investors under sections 11 and 11B of the act but in that time investors filled for the CIRP in NCLT against the company. Layman's CIRP definition "the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) is a recovery mechanism given under the IBC to the creditors when the firm becomes insolvent". Thus property attached by SEBI should be de-attached because investors have already applied for the process o...
Read more