S.S. CHHEENA versus VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN & ANOTHER

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 1111 · Decided: 12-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 12 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 1111 
· S.S. CHHEENA 
v. 
VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN & ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1503 of 2010) 
AUGUST 12, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. PANICKER 
RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 306 - Abetment of suicide -
Essential ingredients - Dispute between two students over C 
theft of mobile - Suicide by complainant's son - Complaint 
filed against Enquiry Officer of the university alleging 
abetment of suicide -
Trial court framing charge u/s. 306 
against Enquiry Officer - Upheld by High Court - On appeal, 
held: There should be a clear mens rea to commit the offence 
D 
- It also requires an active act or a direct act which led the 
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act · 
must have been intended to push deceased into such a 
position that he committed suicide - Statement of dec~ased 
against Enquiry Officer in the suicide note, does not attract E 
the ingredients of abetment - Conviction cannot be legally 
made without any credible evidence or material on record 
against Enquiry Officer - It would be travesty of justice to 
compel Enquiry Officer to face criminal trial - Order of framing 
charge uls. 306 against Enquiry Officer is palpably erroneous, 
F 
unsustainable, and is quashed - Mens rea. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Suicide' - Connotation of. 
A dispute arose between the complainant's son and 
'HS', a fellow student with regard to the theft of a mobile 
phone. The appellant-Security Officer of the University 
conducted an enquiry. Meanwhile, the complainant's son 
1111 
G 
H 
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A committed suicide. A suicide note was recovered from his 
pocket. During ihvestigation of the State case involving 
'HS', the complainant filed a private complaint alleging 
that the Enquiry Officer was responsible for abetting the 
suicide of his son. The trial court clubbed both the cases. 
B Accordingly, a charge u/s. 306 IPC was framed against 
the appellant also. The High Court dismissed the 
appellant's revision petition. Therefore, the appellant filed 
the instant appeal. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere 
defined in the Penal Code; however, its meaning and 
import is well known and requires no explanation. 'Sui' 
means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus, implying an 
D act of self-killing. A person committing suicide must 
commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed 
-.by him in achieving his object of killing himself. In India, 
while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that 
the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, 
E attempt to suicide is an offence punishable u/s. 309 IPC. 
[Paras 17 and 20) [1119-E; 1120-8-C) 
Gangu/a Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 
(2010) 1 sec 750 - relied on. 
· 
F 
2.1 'Abetment' is defined u/s. 107 IPC. There should 
be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing 
of an act by the latter. Each person has his own idea of 
self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible 
to lay down any strait-jacket formula in dealing with such 
. G cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its 
own facts and circumstances. [Paras 21 and 27) [1120-
C; 1122-G-H] 
2.2. Abetment involves a mental process of 
H 
insti~1ating a person or intentionally aiding a person in 
S.S. CHHEENA v. VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN & ANR. 1113 
doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the 
A 
accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, 
conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the 
legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this 
Court is clear that in order to convict a person uls. 306 
IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the 
B 
offence. It also requires an active act or a direct act which 
led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option, and 
that act must have been intended to push the deceased 
into such a position that he committed suicide. [Para 28] 
(1123-A-C] 
C 
Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 
731; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 
618; State of West Bengal v. Ori/al Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73; 
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 
(2009) 16 SCC 605 - referred to. 
D 
2.3 No conviction can be legally made without any 
credible evidence or material on record against the 
appellant. The order of framing a charge uls. 306 IPC 
against the appellant is palpably erroneous and 
E 
unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.