The suicide note written by Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old programme designer from Uttar Pradesh, who died in Bengaluru, has exposed the negative side of the family court structure. The suicide note of over 20 pages and the video, in which Subhash has given detailed information about his history with his wife, the court case and the impact it had on his family and mental health, have raised serious concerns about the system. Abetment to suicide The letter written by Subhash makes serious allegations against his wife, his family and the court structure for forcing him to commit suicide. However, a look at the arrangements relating to abetment to suicide raises the question whether the case falls under the strict legal definition. In various judgments of the High Court and various High Courts in cases of abetment to suicide, particularly, in cases where women commit suicide due to negligence of in-laws, it has become well-known that the “arguments” of abetment should be considered in such cases. While a suicide confession or suicide note is considered crucial evidence, courts have held that a suicide confession or suicide note is not sufficient to convict a person of the offence of abetment of suicide.
In 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed the charges against media baron Arnab Goswami, noting that “to constitute the offence of abetment there must be a coordinated or indirect motivation to commit the offence, the active role of the accused in abetting the commission of the offence or doing an act which is instrumental in the commission of the offence, and the presence of a close connection in time”.
The Indian Justice Code (BNS) uses language similar to the previous Indian Correctional Code to define abetment of suicide. Section 108 of the BNS states that if any person dies by committing suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine.
The offence of “abetment to a criminal act” also gives a wide definition to the term “abetment” under Section 45 of the BNS. A person instigates an act by means of a scheme to induce any person to do that act, joins with one or more other person or persons in any scheme for doing that act, if any act or illegal estoppel is in consonance with that scheme, and instigates to do that act, or by any act or illegal estoppel intentionally aids in the doing of that act.
Subhash’s suicide note gives point-by-point details of the dissatisfaction he felt due to his wife’s activities and in fact cites two occasions when his wife and mother-in-law pushed him to death by committing suicide. These incidents took place in April and March this year. The timing of that instigation can be ascertained to see if it is considered to be the “proximate or coordinated” cause of his decision to commit suicide. Legal voices Speaking to India Today TV, advocate Malavika Rajkotia, a leading legal consultant in family litigation, cited “systemic frustration” in the Bengaluru techie suicide case. “I cannot comment on this particular issue because I don’t have the right information. Broadly, I would say he cannot be said to be promoting or supporting it because there is no such proximity. There is a more profound systemic discomfort that needs to be addressed because it becomes very zealous and cruel in such cases,” Rajkotia said. Emphasizing the heavy burden of matrimonial litigation on a structure that does not have enough judges to handle this volume, Rajkotia pointed out that individual cases bring out the “brutal emotional side” of litigants.
“What needs to be addressed is the contempt and systemic restlessness between the parties. The family courts are overburdened because of the sheer volume of cases and lack of adequate judges. The number of parties has reduced and judges are hearing 120 cases per day,” he said.
Advocate Luthra reiterated the issue of the inexcusable emotionalism and malicious nature of separate and family litigation.
“This is an exceptionally disturbing case. Justified because some individuals are abusing the framework and are able to exercise control and abuse the laws that were passed in support of women. Making a case of abetment to suicide will really open Pandora’s box. I know many spouses who are willing to take their own lives and many spouses who are willing to take their own lives,” Luthra said.
“Legally, it may not be possible to establish a connection to death. But we have to take a very serious approach to reach the child,” he added. Luthra said that coercively registering the offence of abetment to suicide in such cases sets “a dangerous reference point”. “If we start registering cases of abetment to suicide in such circumstances, it would be setting an unsafe reference point. There are many individual cases which show coercive registration of the offence of abetment to suicide.