The recent unfortunate incidents of suicide at workplaces, coerces one to discuss the reasons of such mishaps and to what extent the workplace ecosystem is to be blamed. This article delves into the intricacies of the law associated with abetment of suicide and recapitulates the jurisprudence applied by the Courts while deciding the cases of suicide at workplaces. Alongside, it also offers measures to create an inclusive and healthy work culture.

For the prosperity of the country's economy, it is imperative that every sector must endeavour to perform consistently and persistently. As an ancillary of this endeavour, it is inevitable that the workforce employed in these sectors must carry the additional responsibility to perform assiduously. This requirement, inevitably, infests the entire chain of hierarchy in an organization, with an infectious mental pressure. It is difficult to track the conflagration of this pressure into a state of despair and mental disparagement.

Feeling humiliated by a senior's remarks resulting in the loss of self-esteem, ill treatment by the company officials causing a sense of loss of self-respect, persistent pressure to outperform peers with expectations to work at oddly hours leading to topsy-turvy work life balance and impacting mental health, failing to meet expectations in the company's internal assessments engendering a sense of loss of self-worth.

All these factors are omnipresent at almost all workplaces. The factual matrix of the legal cases before Courts is a testament of myriad reasons because of which an employee resorts to external counselling and in some cases, in a moment of despair, to the extreme step of ending their lives.

Discussion and Analysis
Recently in a case titled Nipun Aneja & Ors. versus State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017), the Supreme Court, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, dealt with the question that in what manner some of the officers of the company (appellants in the case), could be said to have instigated the deceased that ultimately led him to commit suicide. In this case, the victim was allegedly demoted and was being pestered and forced to take Voluntary Retirement Scheme by the officials of the company.

Victim was associated with the company for the past 23 years. The Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, while acquitting the officers, held, inter alia, that while determining the liability in cases of suicides, it is imperative for the courts to keep in mind the following factors:[i]

1. Did the appellants, on the date of death of the deceased, create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the only escape?
2. Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or undeserving of life, leading him to commit suicide?
3. Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin, to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out?
4. Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged the reputation of the deceased and pushed him to commit suicide due to public humiliation and loss of dignity?

In the case titled Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446, the Supreme Court while dealing with the term 'instigation' held:[ii]

"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.

Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.

Thus, to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or 'urging forward'. The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction…..to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts."

In another case titled Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998, the factual matrix was that a quarrel had taken place between the accused and the deceased during which, the accused asked the deceased "to go and die". The Supreme Court observed that the accused had also specifically been named in the suicide note left behind by the deceased and held that:[iii]

"Merely asking a person "to go and die" does not in itself amount to instigation and also does not reflect mens rea, which is a necessary concomitant of instigation. The deceased was anyway in great distress and depression. The other evidence on record showed him to be a frustrated man who was in the habit of drinking."

Considering the said circumstances, the Court quashed the proceedings against the accused, holding that ingredients of abetment were not fulfilled therein.

In another case titled Praveen Pradhan versus State of Uttranchal & Anr. (Criminal Appeal no. 1589 of 2012), the appellant had long been attempting to compel the deceased to indulge in several wrongful practices at the workplace. The deceased was not comfortable with complying with such orders and as a consequence, the appellant started making illegal demands and as the same were not fulfilled, he began to harass and insult the deceased at the regular intervals. The appellant, in fact, on one occasion, disgraced the deceased in front of the staff of the entire factory, and told him that "had there been any other person in his place, he would have died by hanging himself".

From the evidence deposed, it was deciphered that it was not an isolated instance of harassment, or an occasional off-hand remark but a persistent and consistent harassment by the appellant. While upholding the conviction of the accused, the Supreme Court remarked that:[iv]

"…a plain and simple reading of the suicide note makes it crystal clear that the appellant had not just humiliated and insulted the deceased on one occasion. In fact, it is evident that the appellant perpetually humiliated, exploited and de-moralised the deceased, which hurt his self-respect tremendously. The words used are, to the effect that the appellant 'always' hurt the self-respect of the deceased and he was 'always' scolding him. The appellant 'always' made attempts to force him to resign.

"In the instant case, alleged harassment had not been a casual feature, rather remained a matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with a married woman, knowing that she also had another paramour; and therefore, cannot be compared to the situation of the deceased in the instant case, who was a qualified graduate engineer and still suffered persistent harassment and humiliation and additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands made by the appellant, upon non-fulfillment of which, he would be mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a prolonged period of time. He had also been forced to work continuously for a long durations in the factory, vis-à-vis other employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch. Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of words to the effect, that, "had there been any other person in his place, he would have certainly committed suicide" is what makes the present case distinct from the aforementioned cases…"

In another case titled Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301, the Supreme Court, inter alia, discussed following factors essential for determining the offence of abetment of suicide. The factors are recapitulated below: [v]

1. There must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
2. Whether the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he/she ultimately ended his/her life.
3. An offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. Therefore, 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. 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.
4. 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.
5. If the persons who committed suicide had been 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. 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.
6. If the accused by his/her acts and by his/her 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 IPC.
7. 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.
8. If the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked to commit suicide.

Conclusion Perusal of the above judgments of the Supreme Court, it is manifestly apparent that the Court has, unequivocally and fairly, time and again held that there cannot be any straight jacket formula to determine offence of abetment of suicide. Every case must be decided considering facts and circumstances involved therein. What makes this study intriguing is that on perusal of judgments, it can be culled out that the determination of offence of abetment of suicide, must not only involve the element of mens rea and actus reas on the part of the accused, but the psychology and behaviour of the victim plays an equally vital role. Factors for Determination

1. Proximity to the time of occurrence: There must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. The fact that the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life may be investigated.
2. Actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased: Abetment of suicide cases involve multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions, therefore, 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.
3. Hypersensitive and ordinarily circumstanced person: 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. If the persons who committed suicide had been 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.
4. Continuous course of conduct: The accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked. Harassment has not been a casual feature, rather remained a matter of persistent harassment. Not being an isolated instance of harassment, or an occasional off-hand remark but a persistent and consistent harassment by the accused. In that case, deed of the accused may be considered as an abetment of suicide.
5. Status of the person: Damaging the reputation and self-esteem of a person belonging to an educated and qualified strata of the society may cause more mental disruption compared to an individual belonging to lowly strata.

Suggestions According to the reports of World Health Organisation, 15% of working adults live with a mental disorder. 12 billion workdays are lost every year to depression and anxiety alone at a cost of US$ 1 trillion per year in lost productivity. Factors such as discrimination, job insecurity, harassment or bullying can all generate work-related stress. Following are few suggestions that can be inculcated in the work ecosystem which may be useful in mitigating the escalation of mental pressure at workplaces:

• Offering flexible working arrangements and modifying workloads or work schedules to enable work life prioritization.
• Involving workers in decisions about their jobs and protect workers from discrimination and bullying. Ensuring that workers understand what an unacceptable behaviour is and how it will be handled by the administration.
• Training managers for mental health, covering what job stressors are and how they can be managed. How to recognize and appropriately respond to emotional distress and to facilitate help seeking.
• Training workers in mental health literacy and awareness, which can reduce the stigma associated with mental health conditions.
• As far as possible, there should be a culture of equivalent distribution of work and labour to help workers maintain equanimity.
• Commonly the young entrants are extremely susceptible to excoriation which makes it highly imperative that they are handled with extreme care at workplaces. In their initial years, they should be given ample opportunity to ease into the high-pressure working culture. More than monitoring, they deserve mentoring.

These factors may not be systemically applicable in all sectors. However, an endeavour to make an inclusive approach by the organizations and sensitizing its employees of the aforesaid elements, can help create a healthy work atmosphere, so that the workers do not feel marooned in the moment of despair and unanimously contribute to the growth of their respective organizations in a more efficacious manner.

End Notes:

1. Nipun Aneja & Ors. versus State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017)
2. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446
3. Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 1998
4. Praveen Pradhan versus State of Uttranchal & Anr. (Criminal Appeal no. 1589 of 2012)
5. Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301
6. Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr., (1995) Supp (3) SCC 438)