Section 306 IPC Abetment of Suicide

Scope of Section 306 of IPC

In India, suicide is not an offense while attempt to suicide is a punishable offense under Section 309 of IPC and so is Abetment of Suicide as mentioned under Section 306 of IPC. In this article, we will be emphasizing on Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It states that any person who abets or assists a person in the commission of suicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine[1]. Section 306 is often read with section 107 which describes the term “Abetment”.

Meaning of “Abetment”:

A person abets the commission of activity when:

1. He/ She instigates any person to do a thing;
2. He/ She engages with 1 or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing or if an act or illegal act takes place in pursuance of the conspiracy; and
3. He/ She intentionally aides the doing of that thing by any act or illegal omission.

Here the 1st clause of section 107 refers to a person who by willful misrepresentation or by willful concealment of material fact which he is supposed to disclose voluntarily causes or procures a thing to be done is said to instigate the doing of the thing.

The 2^nd and the 3^rd clause of the section in simple words signify that any person either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act does anything to facilitate the commission of the act is said to aid the doing of the act. The offense of Abetment of Suicide is a non-bailable and cognizable offense which can be tried by the Court of Session.

The conditions mentioned for this offense seem a little vague and are prone to misuse so there have been various cases which have time and again amended the provisions and laid down guidelines for the application of this section. Here are a few landmark judgments to further illustrate in Section 306.

Important Case Laws in Section 306:

1.) Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State( Govt. of NCT of Delhi):

In this case, the Court dealt with the meaning of the term “instigation” and “goading”. The Court gave its opinion that the mala fide intention to provoke, incite or encourage the commission of an act by a person is mandatory. Each person’s suicidality pattern is different from others thus, it is not possible to lay down a straight-jacket formula while dealing such cases.[2] Each case must be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the case decided by the Court gave a clear indication that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, mens rea is an indispensable ingredient. It also requires the act to play an active part in pushing the deceased into such a position that he sees no option other than suicide.

 2. )  State of West Bengal v Orilal Jaiswal & Another[3]:

The Court gave out a caution that all Courts should be meticulous while assessing the facts and circumstances of the cases and also the evidence adduced in the trail for finding whether cruelty meted out to the victim persuaded one to end one’s life by committing suicide. If the Court finds out that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to the petulance and difference in domestic life an individual is ordinarily exposed to, the Court would not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused should be held guilty.

3.)  Ramesh Kumar v State of Chattisgarh[4]:

In this case, in a dispute between the husband and wife, the husband uttered to the wife, “You are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like”. As a result of this statement, the wife committed suicide. The Court interpreted the term “instigation “ again and declared that in order to satisfy the requirement of instigation, though the actual words must be used for such a consequence, yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. A word uttered out of anger or emotion cannot be termed as “instigation”.

4.) Manikandan v State:

This has proved to be an imperative judgment in the history of landmark judgments. The Madras High Court held that merely being named in a Suicide Note does not invoke Section 306 IPC. The contents of the note need proper scrutinization to find out whether the accused falls within the ambit of abetment as mentioned under section 306. The Court further declared that “it is not the wish and willingness nor the desire of the victim to die, it must be the wish of the accused, it is the intention on the part of the accused that the victim should die that matters much. There must be a positive act on the part of the accused.”[5]

Conclusion

We thus see that this particular Section of IPC is quite sensitive and has to be used responsibly. The cases portray the intricacies involved in such penal provisions which can be misappropriated in the absence of stern directions from the Court. The decision of a weak-minded or a woman of frail mentality should not be misunderstood as abetment. Sometimes the victim might take the decision of committing suicide unaccompanied by any act or instigation. Thus it would not be fair to blame another person for such foolishness.

[1] Indian Penal Code, s 306

[2] Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State(Government of NCT of Delhi) [2009] 16 SCC 605

[3] [1994] 1 SCC 73

[4] [2001] 9 SCC 618

[5] Manikandan v State [2016] SC 316

How to file a case on instances of sexual harassment at workplace

Sexual harassment in the workplace is one of the biggest problems which has started to increase as the corporate culture has begun to flourish. Anyone can be a harasser, and anyone can be a victim. It is insignificant as to who commits the offense. It could be a manager, co-worker, or even a non-employee like a client, contractor, or vendor. If the person’s conduct creates a hostile work environment or interrupts an employee’s success, is considered sexually harassing. An act which may amount to sexual harassment may vary from a sexually colored involuntary encounter with a senior employee of colleague, winking, whistling inappropriate touch or similar behavior. An act of a senior employee asking for a non-consented sexual favor from the junior employee, in lieu of promotion in the job, falls in the category of sexual harassment at the workplace.

To govern such actions and create a healthy working environment for women, Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan to fill the legislative vacuum laid down Vishaka Guidelines for the protection of women from sexual harassment at workplace. Later an act was passed by the legislature named, Protection of Women from Sexual harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

As per the rules governing sexual harassment at workplace, it is compulsory for all organizations with 10 or more workers to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) for registration of complaints relating to sexual harassment and take action against the guilty employer or employee. Constitution of ICC is a legal right, and in case the workplace is refusing to constitute the same, they can be legally penalized.

The constituted ICC can file a complaint against the incident of sexual harassment at your workplace. A complaint must constitute the following details.

1. Name of the person by whom the complaint is filed.
2. The date on which the incident of sexual harassment took place
3. The time when the incident happened
4. Description of the incident or inappropriate behavior
5. Name of the person accused of sexual harassment
6. Working relationship between the victim and accused.

The complaint with the details mentioned above must be filed within three months of sexual harassment incident, with full confidentiality and speedy process. This sexual harassment complaint can be filed by anyone irrespective of gender. Lodging of an internal complaint with the ICC does not cease the right of the victim to lodge a criminal complaint against the colleague or employer. Reply to the complaint must be filed by the accused within ten days. An inquiry has to be completed within 90 days. The final report generated thereof must be submitted to the Employer or District officer within ten days. The Employer or the District Office has to act on recommendations within 60 days. In addition to this, if the victim or accused is not satisfied with the recommendations of the ICC or LCC (Local Compliant Committee), a further appeal can be filed before a tribunal or a court.

In the case of  Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra placed before the SC of India, Accused mentioned that the penalty on him was harsh and disproportionate to the charge leveled against him. It was concluded by the research that the accused had not actually molested the victim, but had only tried to assault her and had not made any physical contact with her. On this, the Staff Committee observed that no lenient view would be justified in a case of molestation of a woman employee when the charge was fully proved. Any sympathetic action in such a situation would have a demoralizing effect on working women. One of the judges from the bench, in this case, remarked that they would not wait for a girl to be raped and then the charges of sexual harassment could be logged. Hence the charges levied on the accused are reasonable and not disproportionate.

Apart from the complaint mechanism, the employer can take another recourse such as Criminal proceedings and Disciplinary action.

Know More:  Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Under Criminal proceedings, as per Vishakha Guidelines, when the conduct of accused amount to a specific offense under IPC or any other law, the employer shall initiate appropriate actions in accordance with the law. Attention must be paid to ensure that victim or witnesses are not victimized or discriminated against while dealing with the complaints of sexual harassment. Following are the specific provisions of Indian Penal Code, that can be applied in a sexual harassment case thereby making it a criminal complaint.

Section 294, talks about the obscene act in public place.

Section 354, embodies the provision when whosever assaults or uses criminal force on any women, intending to outrage her modesty.

Section 509 holds that whosoever intending to insult the modesty of women, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture or exhibits any object or intrudes upon the privacy of such women. The same shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

In addition to the aforementioned recourses, when such conduct amounts to misconduct in employment as defined by the relevant service rules, appropriate disciplinary action must be initiated by the employer in accordance with the rules.

A civil suit can be filed for damages under tort laws. That is, the basis for filing the case would be mental anguish, physical harassment, loss of income and employment caused by sexual harassment.

Hit and Run cases and legal consequences

Introduction To Hit and Run Cases

Hit and Run cases happen when the drivers while driving incur damage to any person’s life, health or property while rash driving and thereafter failing to register their vehicle and driving license with the concerned legal authorities. In layman’s terms, Hit and Run is hitting a person or property while driving and then fleeing. It becomes very hard to identify and punish the culprits because of lack of evidence and witnesses. However, there have been many instances when the law has convicted them.

Statutory Punishment of Hit and Run

Hit and run cases are not specifically punishable under Indian Penal Code (IPC) as such. Though, Sections 279, 304A, and 338 of the IPC are applicable in the Hit and Run Cases. Section 279 defines and punishes Rash Driving. There is a punishment of jail term extending up to 6 months and a thousand rupees fine under this section. Also, Section 304A punishes death by negligence. This section is directly applicable to Hit and Run cases which result in the victim’s death. The punishment under the Section is for up to 2 years. In cases where the victim hasn’t died but is grievously injured, the punishment is given in Section 338.[i]

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is applicable to the cases of Hit and Run too. Section 161 of the Act defines “hit and run” as “an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles the identity whereof cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts for the purpose”. As can be observed by the official codified definition, a hit and run does not always pertain to murder or grievous hurt, but to accidents at large. Section 161 also provides for compensation to the victims of the hit and run; twenty-five thousand rupees in case of death and twelve thousand and five hundred rupees in case of grievous hurt.

Section 134(a) of the Act requires the driver to secure medical attention to the injured persons immediately. And section 134(b) requires them to give the information about and relevant to the same to a Police officer as soon as possible. Failing these two duties, the driver will be punishable.[ii]

Statistics of Hit and Run cases

More than 20000 people lost their lives in Hit and Run cases in India alone.[iii] Hit-and-run cases accounted for 11.4% of all accidents in 2015, an increase from 10.9% in 2014, according to road transport ministry data. In a survey, they found that about 74% of respondents expressed unwillingness to assist victims of road accidents. According to a study Impediments to Bystander Care in India conducted by SaveLIFE Foundation, advocacy working for road safety, and TNS India, a global marketing research company, on July 2013. The SaveLife-TNS study also points to another study by the Indian Journal of Surgery published in 2006. There, it was found that 80% of road accident victims do not receive any medical care within the first or golden hour after the accident.

Problems in Hit and Run cases

The biggest issue in the cases of Hit and Run is the absence of any direct evidence. Usually, there is no hard evidence to put the culprit at the crime scene. This makes it very difficult for the Police to pursue the investigation. Sometimes due to the speeding vehicles and a lot of rush, even witnesses aren’t able to help with the investigation. Also, the witnesses often don’t want to be entangled in the legal framework. The Police have to rely on indirect pieces of evidence in such cases. The investigation requires very precise and careful monitoring of the crime scene.

The witnesses of the accident are also unwilling and reluctant to help the victims. This causes a lot of loss of life. In 2013, the Apex Court directed the Government to make laws for the protection of the Good Samaritans. However, even after these laws are made, they are available mostly on paper. In some states like Karnataka however, these laws hold much importance.[iv]

Conclusion

Hit and Run cases have come to the knowledge of most of the Indians after the infamous Salman Khan case in 2002. He was accused of driving his car onto the Footpath into a group of homeless people. One of them had died. There have been many high profile cases of Hit and Run over the years. And, many which couldn’t get as much attention.

The usual reason found behind these instances is Rash driving, On-road racing and Drink and drive. The victims, either injured or dead are left to suffer while the culprits run free. Even the compensation given to the victim is too low as termed by the Apex Court. A bill is pending in the Parliament to increase the same from 25000 rupees to 2 lakhs.

[i] Indian Penal Code 1860.

[ii] Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

[iii] Rahul Mohan  Sharma, ‘There were 7 Hit and Run cases every hour in 2015’ (Scroll.in, 5 August 2016) <https://scroll.in/article/813185/there-were-7-hit-and-run-cases-every-hour-in-india-in-2015> acessed 12 January 2019.

[iv] Karnataka Good Samaritan and Medical Professional (Protection and Regulation during Emergency Situations) Act.

Ten Things That Happen When You Are In Frustration Of Contract

When a contract is entered into between two parties, specific duties and rights arise between those two parties. The frustration of contract is a scenario whereby some unforeseen events happens after the contract is entered into, which make the performance of the contract impossible. Such a situation is known as the frustration of the contract. The parties need not perform the contract; thereafter, they are relieved from the entire contractual obligation that arose from such contract.

English Law on the frustration of contract

The doctrine of frustration of contract was initially developed in the English laws. The case which developed this doctrine was Taylor v. Cardwell, whereby there was an opera house which was rented to hold concerts via contract between the parties. The opera house was subsequently destroyed by fire. The court held that the contract was frustrated as the subject-matter of contract on which the entire contract was made, was destroyed by fire and in no way, the contract could be further carried on.[1]

The doctrine of Frustration of contract under the Indian Law

As a general rule, once a contract is entered into between the parties, it has to be carried on according to such agreement. But there is an exception to this rule under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 under Section 56. The section reads as follows-

“Contract to do act afterward becoming impossible or unlawful.-A contract to do an act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, because of some event which the Promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful.

Compensation for loss through non-performance of act known to be impossible or unlawful.-Where one person has promised to do something which he knew, or, with reasonable diligence, might have known, and which the promisee did not know, to be impossible or unlawful, such promisor must make compensation to such promisee for any loss which such promisee sustains through the non-performance of the promise.”[2]

Therefore, a contract to do anything which is made impossible or unlawful to execute thereafter becomes void. Compensation is also provided to the party who suffers a loss on such non- performance of the contract by the person who knew that the act was unlawful or impossible to perform.

The doctrine is based on the legal maxim “les non cogit ad impossibilia,” which means the law will not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly do. The apex court very well explained the doctrine in the case of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram, whereby, the court held that the word ‘impossibility of contract’ and ‘frustration’ could be used as a synonym. Where the contract cannot be performed because of the impossibility, then the person cannot be compelled to do that task.[3]

 Conditions necessary for Section 56

1. There should be a valid contract existing between the parties. The contract occurred between the parties should satisfy all the requirements of a valid contract set out by the Indian Contract Act, 1972.
2. The contract must be set to be performed. That means it has not been performed either wholly or has been performed only in part. Only if some part of the contract is yet to be performed, section 56 will find its applicability.
3. The contract has either becomes impossible or unlawful after that. The contract, after being entered into, should become impossible to perform or unlawful. The party should be unaware of this fact or else they will have to pay the compensation to the party suffering from such known frustration of contract.

Grounds of the frustration of contract may be the destruction of the subject –matter, non- occurrence of the contemplated events, death or incapacity, change of circumstances, government, administration or legislation intervention, the intervention of war, and such other circumstances.

Conclusion

The doctrine of frustration of contract can be very well be defined after reading Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is made evident can frustration can be allowed into in two circumstances, i.e., the impossibility of performance of contract and illegality of contract. Adequate compensation is provided to the party who has in any of the circumstances of the frustration suffered loss by the party who has gained something from the frustration.

[1] Taylor v. Cardwell (1863) 3 B.& S. 826.

[2] Indian Contract Act, 1872, s. 56.

[3] Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram (1954) AIR 44.

10 Small But Important Things To Observe In Section 139 Of Negotiable Instruments Act

Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments act, 1881

As per the prevailing laws in India, under the Indian Evidence Act, every person until proven guilty is presumed to be innocent. Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 talks about the liability of a person who is issuing a cheque which has been dishonored. Such a person is presumed to be guilty until and unless he proves his innocence. When an offense under section 138 is constituted, there is a set of admitted facts and situations where it is presumed that the person is guilty.[3]

In Krishi Vikas Kendra v Mukund[4], the amount due was paid partly by the accused. This amounts to a transaction made and the court held that the burden of proof is on the accused to prove his innocence with respect to dishonored cheque.

Under section 139 there is a presumption that a cheque presented is for a discharge of the liability of debt either partially or wholly. And until and unless the respondent purposes any purpose other than the discharge of liability, it shall be presumed under section 138.[5] The accused person cannot merely escape by saying it was only given as security and the day cheque was issued there was no liability towards the person.[6]

Once the presumption of liability is rebutted, the burden of proof shifts to the complainant to prove that the same cheque was issued for discharge of liability.[7] In the case of Rangappa v. Sri Mohan[8], it was held that if to any fact the accused has not replied in the statutory notice (notice under section 138) proves to be a merit for the complainant side.

This presumption is governed by the rule of evidence which is dealt by in section 118(a) of chapter XIII. Section 140 talks about the possible grounds which may not be allowed as a ground of defense for prosecution under section 138.

In the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hedge[9],

“Presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden which is granted under section 139 should be balanced with respect to the facts of each case, material evidence on record and governing statutes of law.”[10]

For it is a presumption only with regard to existing debts. So, if the amount on the cheque exceeds the amount which is due to the person, then section 138 and section 139 shall not be attracted, this was held in the case of Angu Parameswari Textiles P Ltd. v. Sri Rajan and co.[11]

On the reading of this section, it is pertinent to highlight that court which is taking cognizance should be prima facie satisfied that the case is attracted under this section. The drawer of the cheque gets a chance to rebut this presumption at the trial.[12]

In the case of Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda[13], the SC held that section 1309 cannot be merely rebutted by denial. It has to be proved. The matter in controversy shall be proven to be denied with evidence.

This presumption is however not available to a money lender. He has to prove the fact of due of loan and liability through other evidence and not merely by a presumption of being guilty.[14]

The initial burden after discharged, Section 139 comes into the picture. In the case of A.B.M raja Sah v. B.M.S. Srinivas Sah[15], it was held that once signatures on the cheque were verified by the drawer and he s presumption arose and the accused couldn’t explain the liability. The court ordered the accused to pay twice the amount of the cheque and no sentence was passed.

CONCLUSION

When a cheque which was issued for discharge of liability or debt whether in whole or in part, shall under section 139 be presumed that the accused is liable for the offense under section 138 and thus the accused is under the burden of proof to prove its innocence.

[1] Added by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988

[2] Goa Plast (P) Ltd. V. Chico Ursula D’Souza, (2004) 1 BC 246 (SC)

[3] R. Sankaralingam v. Union of India; (1997) 1 BC 541

[4] (2007) 3 BC 542

[5] K. I George v. Muhammed Master

[6] K.N.Bena v. Muniyappan (2006) 4 BC 287

[7] Pine Products Industries v. RP Gupta and sons

[8] (2010) 11 SC 441

[9] 2008 (1) SCALE 421

[10] M.L. Tannan’s Banking Law and Practice in India, Student Edition, 2015

[11] (2002) 1 BC 99 (mad)

[12] Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi, (1998) 1 BC 421 (SC)

[13] Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2018

[14] M. senguttuvan v. Mahedevaswamy, (2007) 4 BC 708 (Kant)

[15][15] (2007) 4 BC 649 (Mad)