S.306 IPC | Partner Can't Be Held Guilty For Abetment If Lover Commits Suicide Due To Love Failure: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that if a lover commits suicide due to failure in a romantic relationship, his partner cannot per se be held to have abetted the commission of the suicide.While quashing a charge against a lady accused of abetting the suicide of her ex-boyfriend, the Single Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu also observed: “If a lover commits suicide due to love failure,...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that if a lover commits suicide due to failure in a romantic relationship, his partner cannot per se be held to have abetted the commission of the suicide.
While quashing a charge against a lady accused of abetting the suicide of her ex-boyfriend, the Single Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu also observed:
“If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide. For the wrong decision taken by a man of weak or frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide.”
Brief Factual Background
The deceased was in a romantic relationship with the first petitioner for the last several years and both of them had planned to marry each other. However, the petitioner allegedly betrayed him and broke up her relationship with him to marry another man.
Further, it was revealed from the suicide note of the deceased that he was forced to take the extreme step as the petitioner, her brother and her new lover started threatening and harassing him.
Based upon the contents of the suicide note, the police registered an FIR under Section 306 of the IPC against the petitioners for abetting the suicide of the deceased. The trial Court, after assessing the preliminary evidence on record, came to hold that there was enough material to frame a charge against the petitioners and accordingly, framed the charge against them.
Being aggrieved by the framing of charges, the petitioners approached the High Court, under its revisional jurisdiction, seeking to quash the charges framed against them.
Court's Observations
To determine the legal tenability of the impugned order, the Court went through the statements made by several witnesses, including the parents, sister and friends of the deceased. It found that all of them almost equivocally narrated the story as had been done by the deceased in the suicide note.
After discussing the ingredients of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, which provide for 'abetment of a thing' and 'abetment of suicide' respectively, the Bench held:
“From the above position of law, it is clear that to constitute abetment within its meaning under Section 107 read with11 Section 306 of IPC, there should be active suggestion, instigation or encouragement on the part of the accused. Even harassment simpliciter cannot constitute abetment within its meaning under the law.”
Upon a collective assessment of the statement of the witnesses in the light of the position of law, the Court was of the view that the statements of the witnesses are not sufficient to hold the petitioners guilty as versions of the witnesses are based on what is stated to them by the deceased and none of the witnesses had deposed that any threat to the deceased was given in their presence.
Apart from that, it also held that no allegation is forthcoming from the statements of the witnesses that in their presence, the petitioners instigated, conspired or provoked the deceased to commit suicide.
“Thus, the oral evidence of witnesses on the point of abetment to suicide is hearsay, which is not sufficient to frame a charge against the applicants for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC,” it held.
It was further observed that there is no mention in the suicide letter or statements of any witness as to when such threats were given and whether it was continuous or a single incident and whether it was much before the suicide or in close proximity when the suicide was committed.
“True it is that the deceased had written in suicide letter about the threats given by applicants, but, in the opinion of this Court, nature of threats mentioned in the suicide letter written by deceased are not of such an alarming proportion so as to drive a 'normal person' to contemplate suicide,” it was held further.
Accordingly, the Court thought that the suicide letter only expressed a state of the anguish of the deceased towards the first petitioner due to her betrayal in love, but it cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the petitioners to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
Before parting with the order, the Court opined that because of a wrong decision taken by a person with a weak mentality, his partner cannot be blamed for abetting his suicide. In this respect, it relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Geo Verghese v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Consequently, the charges framed against the petitioners were quashed and the impugned order was set aside.
Case Title: Ku. Pooja Chopra & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: CRR No. 1213 of 2023
Date of Judgment: December 07, 2023
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. G.I. Sharan, Government Advocate