Tunisha Sharma suicide case: Supreme Court lawyer Khushbu Jain on if Sheezan Khan can be accused in ‘abetment to suicide’

The suicide of 20-year-old actress Tunisha Sharma on December 24 has shocked the country and once again sparked a conversation on celebrity and abetment to suicides. Sheezan Khan was arrested and is being held in custody in ‘abetment to suicide" after her mother filed a complaint against him.
Supreme Court lawyer Khusbhu Jain has explained what ‘abetment to suicide’ is and if Sheezan can be held responsible.

She shared, “The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no straight answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are convoluted and multifaceted. In the same situation, Different individuals react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide.”
She goes on to explain what ‘Abetment to Suicide’ is and said, “The case in question is revolving around abetment to suicide by Sheezan Khan. Abetment of suicide is an act of (1) abetting, (2) instigating, or (3) aiding the victim in committing suicide. After all of these ingredients of abetment of suicide are satisfied, only then can the prosecution create a case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.”

“The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or may be by (implied) conduct. The words "urge forward" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to make a person move more quickly in the particular direction, specially by pushing or forcing such a person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with the intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter,” she added.

She further added how it be difficult to prove abetment charges and said, “It is difficult to prove abetment charges mainly due to three reasons: (a) lack of direct evidence, (b) nature of mens rea (guilty mind) involved, and (c) challenge in establishing causation between abettor’s actions and consequence. One major reason why it is difficult to prove abetment charges is that any kind or degree of direct evidence against the accused is hard to find. Much like other crimes, proof of guilty intent requires implicit conviction by the court – which requires solid circumstantial evidence over physical clues or testimony in most cases. However, since this type of behaviour usually takes place in secret, witnesses or tangible traces pointing towards offenders are scant. This makes it extremely tough to prove that an intentional crime has been committed by a single individual or group beyond any reasonable doubt.”

“The second aspect that contributes to difficulty in proving abetment charges involves the elements that constitute mens rea (the intention followed through criminality). ‘Aiding and abetting’ carries its own responsibility when it comes to intent; being present before or at the time an offence occurs does not mean guilt alone but must include knowledge about what was going on and/or participating with that knowledge as an accessory – providing help for a successful completion of a crime voluntarily and knowingly or even encouraging it with words or gesture. The legalism demonstrates great difficulty here by requiring a very precise level of detail which may prove challenging given the environment in which many circumstances unfold leading up to and during criminal offenses,” she added.

She said, “Finally, apart from coming up with tangible proof that could convict someone beyond reasonable doubt while proving abetment charges also involves proving causal connection between offender’s actions (abetting) and consequence (crime taking place). This sort of burden becomes too much because much like other areas related to criminal justice where it is necessary to demonstrate harm emanating directly from someone’s action/conduct especially when it comes to intangible components such as encouragement remaining perceivable only by individual accounts rather than physical observation. Though abetment is one of the most serious and heinous crimes, the current definition of abetment has a limited scope, due to which it becomes easy for the criminal to defeat the law. Hence, it is of utmost importance that the provisions that deal with the offence of abetment are amended so much so that it becomes impossible for criminals to evade the legislation.”

Khusbhu finally concluded by saying that the facts of the case need to be examined scrupulously: “In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. For holding Sheezan Khan guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the facts and circumstances of the case needs to be examined scrupulously and also collect the evidence to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to Tunisha had left her with no other alternative but to extinguish her life spark or to put an end to her life… which makes it imperative for the law enforcement agency to keep Sheezan Khan in custody till it is required for collection evidence to conclude whether Tunisha’s death is murder or suicide and whether Khan has played active role, which drove Tunisha to commit suicide.”