Et tu, Bollywood? Sushant Singh Rajput suicide case

Preface:

Recently, to our dismay, Bollywood lost a promising star and a powerhouse of raw talent in the form of Sushant Singh Rajput, who committed suicide by hanging himself at his residence in Mumbai’s Bandra on 14^th June, 2020.

That subsequent to the demise of the “Chhichhore” actor, reports are rife in media that Sushant’s death was not simpliciter a “suicide” but was in fact a case of “abetment to commit suicide” involving Bollywood biggies such as: Karan Johar, Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Salman Khan and Ekta Kapoor, as the abettors.

Lately, Advocate Sudhir Kumar Ojha got registered an F.I.R. against the alleged abettors in Bihar (Muzaffarpur). That the F.I.R. has been registered under the following Sections of the IPC:

1.   Section 306 (Abetment of suicide);

2.   Section 109 (Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provision is made for its punishment);

3.   Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace); and,

4.   Section 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation)

The F.I.R. states that the alleged abettors tried to sabotage the career of the deceased by making sure that the deceased did not get enough films to do and if at all he got films to act in then he is discreetly removed from those films.

Whether or not Sushant’s suicide is a case of “abetment” will come out in blaze once the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed. In the meantime, it is expected that the alleged abettors, the kingpin of Bollywood, will move to the High Court seeking quashing of the F.I.R. on the grounds that they aren’t responsible, directly or indirectly, for Sushant’s death.

Gist of F.I.R. revolves around Section 306 of the IPC:

The entire gist of the F.I.R. revolves around one Section of the IPC, namely, Section 306 of the IPC. Where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred.[1] The offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC is endowed with twin essential ingredients:

(1) A person commits suicide; and,

(2) Such suicide was abetted by the accused.

The offence of abetment to suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person to commit suicide. To hold a person liable for abetting suicide active role of that person (abettor) is required to be established.

Section 306 of the IPC:

Suicide has not been declared as a crime by the IPC obviously because once a person successfully commits suicide, that person is no longer alive to be prosecuted and the crime abates with him. However, an attempt to commit suicide is punishable under Section 309 of the IPC.

The constitutionality of Section 306 of the IPC was challenged in the matter of: Smt. Gian Kaur V/s State of Punjab[2]. Upholding the constitutionality of Section 306 of the IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 306 of the IPC enacted a distinct offence which is capable of existence independent of Section 309 of the IPC.[3]

To make a case of “abetment”, there must be instigation by the accused, that is, provoking, inciting and/or encouraging a person to do an act. The offence of “abetment” must confirm to the definition of the term given in Section 107 of the IPC, that is to say that, there must be instigation, co-operation and/or intentional assistance given to a person to do an act.

More often than not, proving the offence of “abetment to commit suicide” is a difficult task much because according to law, it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the abettor intended that the victim should end his life by committing suicide. That, ordinarily, to prove the intention coupled with positive acts on the part of the accused/ abettors vis-à-vis the causation of suicide by the victim is an uphill task.

The High Court of Madras in Manikandan V/s State[4], observed 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. It need not be by words. It may be by deeds. It may be by letters. But, at the same time, the decision of a weak minded or a woman of frail mentality cannot be misunderstood as abetment. For one’s foolish act another person cannot be made liable.” (emphasis supplied)

As of now, no suicide note has been found in Sushant’s room where he committed suicide, but even if there was a suicide note which named the alleged abettors, it would still be the requirement of law for the prosecution to prove that offence under Section 306 of the IPC was committed by the alleged abettors. That regard may also be had to the recent judgment of the High Court of Karnataka on this point:

“… Mere allegations in the death note that the petitioner and others are responsible for his death, would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed the said offence, unless the overt acts and conduct of accused are stated, in order to prove the case of the prosecution and that is sufficient to drive the person to commit suicide.”[5]

Acts which are intended to “merely harass” the victim, ordinarily fall outside the purview of Section 306 of the IPC:

In the matter of: Ude Singh & Ors V/s State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 233/ 2010, Supreme Court of India (Date of Decision: 25.07.2019), after discussing the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC at length, the court laid down the following test, in order to determine, whether or not, offence under Section 306 of the IPC has been made out against the accused/ alleged abettor:

1.   In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide.

2.   The question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, is a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/ reactions.

3.   In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court ordinarily looks for cogent and convincing proof of the acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.

4.   In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.

5.   Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

6.   For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide.

7.   That instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.[6]

8.   If the person who committed suicide was hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.

9.   But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 of the IPC.

10. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide.

11. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases have to be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap-show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.

12. That human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one’s action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person’s reaction to any other human’s action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same.

13. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set ups, education etc. Even the response to the ill-action of eve-teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self- confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.

A “mental state” or “abetment” writ large?

If news reports are to be believed, Sushant was suffering from clinical depression and was being treated for the same. The test for ascertaining whether offence of “abetment to commit suicide” has been occasioned, can be summarized as follows: “… it is not what the deceased ‘felt’, but what the accused ‘intended’ by his act”.[7]

Thus, the alleged abettors can be convicted for the offences mentioned in the F.I.R., principal offence being Section 306 of the IPC, if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged abettors wanted not only to oust Sushant from Bollywood but wanted him to end his life.

The evidence that comes to surface, once the investigation is complete, will in fact determine whether a case is made out against the alleged abettors or not.

In the matter of: Gurcharan Singh V/s State of Punjab[8], it was held that the basic ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are “suicide death” and “abetment” thereof. In Sushant’s case, death of the actor is a suicide death and not a murder, but the element of “abetment” is yet to be tried and proved on the anvil of cogent evidence.

Report in the matter of Gurcharan Singh (Supra) drew strength from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of: State of West Bengal V/s Orilal Jaiswal & Anr[9], where by it was observed that when offences are in the nature of “abetment to commit suicide” then court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial of the parties, before the court delivers judgment on acquittal/ conviction of the accused/ alleged abettors.

Threshold to Prove Guilt:

To establish a case under Section 306 of the IPC, the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

1.   Not murder, but suicide: Victim (Sushant) committed suicide and was not murdered.

2.   Influence of drugs/ psychotropic substances: At the time of incident, the victim (Sushant) was not under influence of any drug or psychotropic substance.

3.   Hypersensitivity: Victim (Sushant) was not a person of frail or weak mind. Victim was not “hypersensitive”.

4.   Not “mere harassment”: The alleged abettors harassed the victim (Sushant) to the extent that he was driven to commit suicide.

5.   Harassment was cruel and proximate to the time of occurrence: The harassment meted out to the victim was not only continuous and cruel, but was also proximate to the time of occurrence of the incident, that is, 14^th June, 2020.

6.   Abettors actively tarnished self-esteem of the victim: The alleged abettors played an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim (Sushant), which eventually drew him to commit suicide.

7.   Mental process of instigating the victim to commit suicide: Abettors intended (mens rea) and thus, created such circumstances that the victim (Sushant) was left with no option but to end his life by committing suicide. The harassment that the alleged abettors meted out to the victim was severe and grave enough to push the victim to takeaway his own life. Presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.

8.   Not suicide simpliciter but “abetment to commit suicide”: Victim (Sushant) took his life because he was instigated and/ or provoked to do so by the alleged abettors.

The be all and end all:

Sushant Singh Rajput was a brilliant actor, and in the partisan (and parochial) film industry for decades to come he will be remembered as an “Outsider Superstar”. If Sushant was Caesar of his time, the film industry visited him like Brutus. Sushant will continue to live in our hearts as someone who preferred to live beyond the realms of nepotism and cronyism.

Sushant’s death is a wake-up call for all of us, as members of civil society, to realize that “mental health” is as significant as “physical heath” and “emotional well-being” is as vital as “material well-being”. We need to build a value system where estimation of success is not measured solitarily in terms of IQ (Intelligence Quotient) but in terms of blend of both IQ and EQ (Emotional Quotient). No doubt, mental health jurisprudence in India is not much developed as the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 (MHCA) neither defines nor provides for “depression”, “clinical depression” or “stress”, and it only concentrates on the distinction between “mental illness” and “mental retardation”. However, of all the odds the only positive legislative move seems to be the decriminalization of attempt to suicide (Section 309 of the IPC) by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the MHCA.[10]

Lastly, so far as fate of Sushant’s case (abetment to commit suicide) is concerned, it is too early to comment anything much because the matter is still pending investigation and the alleged abettors are still to face police interrogation. However, prima facie, if we apply the principles of law that govern conviction in offences of abetment to commit suicide, namely,

(a) Even if any acts or words uttered by the alleged abettors or their conduct are sufficient to demean or humiliate the deceased and even to drive the deceased to suicide, such acts will not amount to instigation or abetment of commission of suicide, unless it is established that the alleged abettors intended by their acts that the deceased must commit suicide; and,

(b) It is not enough if the acts of the alleged abettors cause persuasion in the mind of the deceased to commit suicide[11];

It seems that alleged abettors might as well be acquitted, because the alleged abettors might have wanted to oust Sushant from Bollywood and/ or end his career, but might not have “intended” to drive him to the point of no return. Investigation and trial in the matter will soon, in times to come, remove the “might and might not” and truth will come out in blaze. Rest, for all that matters in the end is, “justice be done though heavens fall”.