Mere Mention Of Individual's Name In Suicide Note Can't Be Sole Basis Of Trial For Abetment Of Suicide: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that the mere mention of an individual's name in a suicide note cannot be the sole basis for prosecuting him or her to face trial or conviction for the offence of abetment of suicide.“Mere mention of the name of certain individual(s) in the suicide note, stating therein that they are responsible for his death cannot ipso facto be the sole basis for putting...
The Delhi High Court has observed that the mere mention of an individual's name in a suicide note cannot be the sole basis for prosecuting him or her to face trial or conviction for the offence of abetment of suicide.
“Mere mention of the name of certain individual(s) in the suicide note, stating therein that they are responsible for his death cannot ipso facto be the sole basis for putting the accused to face trial or for conviction under Section 306 IPC,” Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said.
The court observed that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code requires a causal link or proximity to be established between the acts of the accused and the deceased committing suicide.
“As observed above, the specific act of the accused has to be seen in light of the surrounding/attending circumstances of each case to determine if the same could be attributed as the cause of suicide in the case,” the court said.
Justice Ohri dismissed a plea moved by a wife whose husband committed suicide allegedly due to harassment by their daughter-in-law, who left the matrimonial home with all belongings, and her parents.
After investigation, a final report was filed by the police concluding that no concrete evidence was found except the suicide note linking the accused persons with the alleged offence.
A protest petition was filed against the final report by the petitioner. However, the trial court rejected the same.
Upholding the trial court order, Justice Ohri said that no material came on record which would show that there was any connection between the deceased and the daughter-in-law and her parents since the day she left the matrimonial home.
“A perusal of the undated suicide note would also show that neither any details have been given nor many specific incident has been mentioned, which might have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The CDR analysis of the deceased also does not indicate any act on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 which can be said to have abetted the deceased to commit suicide,” the court said.
It also took note of the statement of an independent witness who stated that the deceased was under stress due to his own conduct of transferring possession of the house to a stranger.
“In the facts of the present case, apart from their name coming in the suicide note of the deceased, no other fact has been placed on record as to show what act was committed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 leading to the deceased committing suicide,” the court said.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik and Dr.Sunil Kumar, Advocates
Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Laksh Khanna, APP for State; Mr.Aditya Vikram and Mr.Ayushman, Advocates for respondent Nos.2 to 4
Title: ASHA RANI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 434