Supreme Court upholds the criminal proceeding against Hindustan Lever Limited officers in Rajeev Jain Suicide Case
Overview of the Criminal Appeal No. 654/2017
The accused Nipun Aneja and others have challenged the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which has denied their plea to quash criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC against them. The case revolves around the suicide of Rajeev Jain, who was the employee at Hindustan Lever Limited, and the accused are the senior officers of Hindustan Lever Limited alleged to harass and abet the deceased.
Background
The deceased Rajeev Jain was an employee of Hindustan Lever Limited. The deceased was serving with the company for twenty-three years. The deceased committed suicide in a Hotel Ambar situated in Lucknow dated 3.11.2006. The deceased brother lodged a First Information Report on November 4, 2006, alleging that the deceased was facing several harassments by his senior officers due to his refusal to accept a voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) believing that Rajeev Jain was being forced to Compulsory Retirement Scheme. The FIR names several senior officers, including the appellants Nipun Aneja, Kalol Chakraborty, and Rupendra Yadav, claiming that their actions directly contributed to Rajeev's distress and subsequent suicide.
Legal Framework
The crux of the legal argument rests on Section 306 IPC, which states:
"If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished."
To establish abetment under this section, it must be proven that the accused had instigated or aided the deceased in taking his own life. The Supreme Court's assessment focused on whether there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the actions and behaviour of the appellants constituted abetment.
High Court Analysis
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had dismissed the appellant plea to quash the criminal proceedings on highlighted testimonies from colleagues who stated that Rajeev experienced humiliation during a meeting conducted by the appellants, where pressure was exerted on employees regarding the VRS.
The High Court noted:
Direct Nexus: The court found a direct connection between the humiliating treatment Rajeev faced during the meeting and his decision to commit suicide. The testimonies indicated that Rajeev was not only subjected to verbal humiliation but also pressurised to accept a lower post in the company.
Continuous Harassment: The court emphasized that Rajeev had been under sustained pressure from his superiors leading up to his death. This ongoing harassment was seen as a critical factor contributing to his mental state at the time.
Supreme Court's Analysis
Supreme Court relied upon some judgements:
1. Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2021) 19 SCC 144
2. M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315
3. Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301
4. Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of Police reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387
There was no direct evidence to prove the intention against the accused. The employer and employee are on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. The former category leaves more expectations. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police.
Conclusion
This judgment not only addresses specific allegations against Hindustan Lever Limited officers but also sets a precedent for how corporate environments are managed in relation to employee treatment and mental health awareness and the employers have a responsibility towards their employees’ mental well-being and that failure to uphold this duty can lead to severe legal consequences.
Author: Anupriya Dixit is an Associate with Pratap & Co.