The Supreme Court has held that ordinary administrative directions, disciplinary supervision, adverse remarks on an official’s performance, even stern behaviour by a superior, however unpleasant they may have been perceived by the deceased, cannot by themselves be elevated to the offence of abetment of suicide under the penal law.
The prosecution alleged that Shivakumar had subjected her to mental harassment, reprimanded her, issued show-cause notices and made her undertake field duties. The allegations also included an incident in March 2020 concerning removal of an encroachment and arrest of accused persons, registration of an FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and forcing her to trek in the forest despite her pregnancy, which she alleged resulted in a miscarriage. The Supreme Court, however, said the material on record did not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC, underlining that abetment requires direct or indirect instigation in close proximity to the suicide and clear mens rea to abet its commission.
She shot herself with her official weapon and left behind three suicide notes addressed to the additional principal chief conservator of forests and area director, her mother and her husband. The notes specifically blamed Shivakumar for her death. The case arose from the suicide on March 25, 2021, of a forest range officer posted in the Harisal Range in Maharashtra.
The judgment further relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings, highlighting that a proximate prior act and the test whether the alleged perpetrator had the intention to drive the victim to suicide were essential ingredients to constitute an offence.
The judgment, released earlier this week, came in an appeal filed by Vinod Shivakumar, then deputy conservator of forests, against the Bombay High Court’s refusal to interfere with criminal proceedings against him. The Supreme Court set aside the high court and trial court orders and discharged Shivakumar from the case. The court emphasised that the suicide notes, though reflective of the deceased’s anguish, could not by themselves establish the requisite mens rea on the part of the accused.
The court noted that the alleged miscarriage had occurred in October 2020, more than five months before the suicide, while the allegations concerning removal of encroachments and registration of the atrocity case dated back to March 2020. The rehabilitation work relied upon by the prosecution had also taken place over several months in 2020.
“There is also no material to suggest that the Appellant, by his words or conduct, intended to push the deceased into such a position that she was left with no reasonable alternative except to take her own life,” it said.
