Annoying Someone By Words, Deeds Or Conduct Which May Provoke Him/Her To Commit Suicide Is Abetment: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that if someone keeps on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds, or conduct, which may provoke or encourage the deceased to commit suicide, it would amount to abetment.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while rejecting the bail application filed by one Muraj who has been booked under Section 306 of IPC as he has been accused of abetting the suicide of a 16-year-old girl, with whom he was in love.

The case in brief

As per the prosecution's case, it was a case of a one-sided love affair, and the applicant used to pressurise her to get married to him and used to annoy her on call and by SMS. 

During the investigation, it had allegedly come on the record that between January 3, 2021, and February 5, 2021, the applicant had called the deceased 247 times and also sent 19 SMSs, and thereafter, he had come to her home and had slapped her. Soon thereafter, she died by suicide.

Much emphasis was laid on the statement of the younger sister of the deceased who had submitted that the applicant had said to the deceased that she would be defamed by him so much that she wouldn't be able to show her face anywhere.

Allegedly, the applicant used to mount pressure upon the deceased to run away and get married to him and on account of harassment, the deceased used to feel humiliated among her family members, friends, and the society, and therefore, she committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance.

On the other hand, the applicant submitted before the Court that no injury was found on her body. He contended that the statement of the younger sister of the deceased was not reliable and that in fact, the deceased had died in her house due to a bite by a poisonous animal

Court's observations 

At the outset, the court opined that to prove the offence of abetment of suicide, there must be a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence, however, no standard or straight jacket formula can be laid down with regard to the sensitivity of each individual.

"Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self respect. Sometime a comment passed against a person on lighter side are taken very seriously by such persons, who are hypersensitive while other persons, who are not so sensitive, behave differently, they ignore even serious comment made against them and try their best to face the situation. Therefore, each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances....In a case of suicide, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide," the Court remarked.

Regarding the facts of the instant case, the Court noted that the applicant had made the last call to the deceased on Feb 5, 2021, at 4:28 pm (and soon thereafter she had died) and therefore, there was a proximate link between the unfortunate incident in question and the act of the accused applicant.

Further, the Court opined that though the deceased had died because of consuming a poisonous substance, however, facts of the case reflected that she was a hyper-sensitive girl aged about 16 years and felt humiliated among his family members, friends and in the society on account of immoral act, misbehavior and harassment of the applicant as disclosed by her younger sister.

In view of the above, the Court found that the allegations and materials against the applicant are of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), hence, the Court dismissed his bail application.

Case title - Muraj @ Muraj Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 200

Click Here To Read/Download Order