- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Not Safe To Prosecute Accused For...
Not Safe To Prosecute Accused For Abetment Of Suicide When Deceased Was Hyper-Sensitive: Delhi High Court
Nupur Thapliyal
2 Sept 2023 4:30 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has observed that it will not be safe to prosecute an accused for the offence of abetment of suicide when the deceased was “hyper-sensitive.”Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed that in order to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there should be abetment and intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet...
The Delhi High Court has observed that it will not be safe to prosecute an accused for the offence of abetment of suicide when the deceased was “hyper-sensitive.”
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed that in order to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there should be abetment and intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
“There must be concrete evidence to suggest that the accused had intended by his act towards the deceased to instigate, to commit suicide. If the deceased happened to be the hyper-sensitive and the action on behalf of the accused is not ordinarily expected to induce another person to commit suicide then it will not be safe to prosecute the accused for abetment of suicided,” the court said.
Justice Jain added that there must be a “direct act of incitement” for the commission of the offence in question.
The court made the observations while discharging three relatives against whom charges were framed under Section 306 and 34 of IPC for abetment of suicide of a woman.
The woman’s father filed a complaint a few days after the incident on the basis of a suicide note which was found later in the house. He alleged that his daughter’s life was made miserable by the relatives with whom they had property disputes in Panipat and that the deceased could not bear the atrocities and committed suicide.
While discharging the three relatives, Justice Jain said that the deceased committed suicide on March 12, 2016, but no suicide note was handed over to the Investigating Officer at that time.
“The statements of the complainant who is the father of the deceased, Sonia Babar who is the sister of the deceased and Poonam who was one of the neighbour of the deceased were recorded during investigation but they did not express any animosity between the family of the deceased and the accused,” the court said.
It further noted that the deceased, in the suicide note which was written on March 03, 2016, stated that she was in depression which shall be a big cause of her death.
“The deceased had put responsibility on all her maternal uncles, their wives and sons for causing depression to her. However, the deceased did not cite even a single act or instance stated to be caused by her maternal uncles and their families which caused depression to the deceased,” the court said.
It added, “From the suicide note it is appearing that there is not even a single act mentioned that the petitioners has instigated the deceased to commit suicide by provoking, inciting or encouraging to do the act of suicide. The deceased was appearing to be under depression and there is nothing in this suicide note which can suggest abetment on the part of the petitioners responsible for the committal of the suicide by the deceased.”
The court observed that there were no specific allegation and material of definite nature against the three relatives against whom charges were framed. “The contents of the suicide note are not sufficient to compel her to commit suicide. The pain and suffering of the complainant who is the father of the deceased is understandable as his young daughter has committed suicide but the sympathies, pain and suffering of the complainant cannot be transformed or translated into legal remedies i.e. for criminal prosecution,” the court observed.
Observing that the trial court did not consider the allegations and contents of the suicide note and other material collected during the investigation and therefore, the order framing charges against them was passed in “mechanical and cryptic manner”.
“In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed the petitioners, namely, Rekha Rani, Madhu and Jatin are discharged for the offences punishable under sections 306/34 IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Surety discharged,” the court said.
Case Title: Rekha Rani and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 781