 Please subscribe to this YouTube channel mentor. Talk can do. Press bell button for notifications. I was not intending to speak on this matter. But then I got so many messages to speak about, you know, this topic. Well, you know, so much of confusion and chaos has been caused regarding Sushant Singh Rajput's heartbreaking demise. So much has been said. Leading to confusion, chaos. I would not like to be dragged into a subjective and biased discussion or chorus. It is such a sensitive matter where a universally loved individual lost his life. Undoubtedly, the family, friends, relatives, near and dear ones are affected the most. They are the most affected. I will be sharing through this talk a legal and objective perspective and dimension to this tragic matter, assuming that there was a death by self, but caused by abetment. So let me discuss, you know, what will have to be proved in order to establish that someone actually did some acts or omissions. Which led to Sushant Singh Rajput's sad untimely demise. The offense of abetment of suicide is stipulated in section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC. It reads as it's in front of your screens, I assume. Section 306, you know, abetment of suicide. It reads as if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The expression abetment is defined in section 107 of the IPC. It reads as should be in front of your screens now. Section 107, abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing who first instigates any person to do that thing. Or, secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy, in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing. If an act or illegal emission takes place in persons of that conspiracy. And in order to the doing of that thing. Kindly note, I will be explaining you in more simple words down the line. Or, thirdly, intentionally aids by an act or illegal emission. The doing of that thing. Now, there are two explanations also attached to this section. Explanation 1. A person who by willful misrepresentation or by willful concealment of a material fact which is bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done. A thing to be done is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Now, explanation 2 being part of that section 107. Whoever either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act and thereby facilitate the commission thereof is said to aid the doing of that act. That's the text of the section 107. Now, a bare analysis of these provisions of law shall demonstrate that everything boils down to the hard and undisputable evidence to be led. Abatement involves a mental process of instigating a person in doing something. A person abets the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that thing. He engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing. I am explaining you in simple words the section 107. Or he intentionally aids by acts or illegal omission the doing of that thing. These are crucial to conclude the abatement as a crime, commission of a crime. The magic word instigate accurately means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about anything which leads to commission of a crime. The Supreme Court of India had observed in a matter between the state of West Bengal versus Jaiswal in 1994 that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence induced in the trial for the purpose of finding out whether the actions of the accused towards the victim had in fact induced the victim to end his or her life by committing suicide. If it emerges that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulants, discord or differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulants, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly placed individual in a given society to commit suicide then the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. That is what the Supreme Court had observed, that is very important. Now the subtle law in India is that whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is to be ascertained from facts and circumstances of each case. Yes, each case has to decide on the basis of facts and circumstances whether there had been an abetment or not and to be found out by continuous conduct of the accused involving his mental element. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to enact by means of act, omission, conduct or language direct or indirect whether it takes the form of express solicitation or hints insinuation or encouragement. Instigation may be in express words or may be by implied conduct. The courts in India have held that in order to prove abetment it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased, the person who committed suicide by words, taunts until the deceased, the one who committed suicide, the victim reacted in such a manner. A casual remark or something said in routine or usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as abetment. So abetment has to be a continuous act. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. It cannot be. There has to be a positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to his or her life. Yes. The abetment will include where the accused plays an active role in, let's say, tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim. There has to be a chain of events to prove that. The courts have even disregarded, can you believe it, the courts have even disregarded suicide notes. We give so much of importance to suicide notes. For instance, in Madan Mohan Singh versus the state of Gujarat, a judgment delivered in 2010, the Supreme Court held that in light of that case, facts that the driver of the accused had alleged in his suicide note that the accused had pushed him to the point of committing suicide. The driver said that in his suicide note. However, on evidence it was discovered that the deceased had an element of bitterness. The one who committed suicide had an element of bitterness and grudge against his employer superior. And even though the deceased felt that he was mistreated and wronged at some point in time, there was nothing available on record to prove that the accused had done anything to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. So, you know, real hard undisputable evidence is everything in the matters relating to abetment of suicide. Even something written in the suicide note can be disregarded if there is no corroborative evidence to that effect. So, I would sum up my talk by citing an observation finally made by the Supreme Court of India very recently, just about, you know, last week in a matter relating to the abetment of suicide, abetment to suicide. The court observed that human mind could be affected, impacted and could react in countless ways. And effect of one's action on the mind of another carries several, several paradoxes and uncertainties. Similar actions are dealt with in a different way by different individuals, different persons. And, you know, there can be no specific hard and fast rule formula or yardstick to estimate or assess a specific person's reaction to any other individual's action. You cannot have a watertight, hard and fast rule. There are so many factors like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban setups, education, family and medical history, you know, your family background, self-confidence and upbringing, etc., which get to be considered in dealing with such cases. Thus, each case, each case is obliged to be dispensed with on its own facts and circumstances. So, you know, and I am sure after looking at what is going all around that such cases cannot be decided in television debates. Please subscribe to this YouTube channel mentor talk and do press bell button for notifications.