The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal case against six senior management personnel of Hindustan Unilever for allegedly abetting the suicide of an employee in 2007.

The court said that there was no material to indicate that the accused had in any manner subjected the victim to mental or physical torture to take the extreme step.

The judgment comes in the backdrop of the recent controversy surrounding the suicide of the 26-year-old chartered accountant, Anna Sebastian Perayil working with global consulting firm Ernst and Young in Pune, who died by suicide in September because of alleged work pressure and being denied basic rest and leave facilities.

In the present case, the deceased Rajeev Jain an employee of Hindustan Lever Limited, who was serving the company for 23 years on November 3, 2006, died by suicide in a hotel in Lucknow, after being allegedly asked to take voluntary retirement, along with 50-60 other employees.

The deceased’s brother, Rajnish Jain, lodged an FIR on November 4, 2006, against the six company officials. Following this, the UP police registered a case under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide.

According to Section 306, if any person commits 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, and shall also be liable to a fine.

A Hindustan Unilever officer filed a petition in Allahabad High Court quashing the criminal case which was dismissed in 2017, aggrieved by which the six officials filed the present appeal in the
apex court.

Allowing the appeal, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed: “The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide.”

But in the present case, no material was available to indicate that the accused had abetted the suicide of Rajeev, the apex court said.

Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment, said that the extreme action of a person committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased and in such cases, incitement can be divided into two broad categories.

First, where the deceased has sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused such as a husband and wife relationship. Second, where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity: employer-employee.

“In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased will be nothing but an abuse of process of law. In our opinion, no case worth the name against the appellants is made out,” the bench said.