The Delhi High Court has recently addressed the issue of whether mere quarrels or fights within a marriage or family can constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. In its judgment, the Court emphasized that such disputes, in isolation, do not amount to abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Ravinder Dudeja, delivering the judgment, clarified that abetment involves instigating, aiding, or conspiring to commit suicide. Therefore, ordinary marital or familial discord, without any overt act of provocation or encouragement, cannot be considered as abetment.
The Court further highlighted the importance of assessing the mental state of the deceased. It noted that individuals suffering from emotional or psychological vulnerabilities, such as depression, may react differently to situations compared to those with stable mental health. Consequently, the Court stated that in cases involving such individuals, a higher degree of proof is required to establish that the accused's conduct led the deceased to commit suicide. The standard applied should be that of a reasonable person, not someone who is unusually sensitive or unstable.
This judgment was delivered while granting anticipatory bail to a man and his wife, who were accused of abetting the husband's suicide. The wife had previously lodged an FIR accusing the husband of committing unnatural sex upon her. Upon learning of this, the husband allegedly consumed poison and left behind a suicide note. The prosecution contended that the deceased had been tortured and harassed by the petitioners, citing a WhatsApp message he had sent before his death. In contrast, the petitioners presented medical records indicating that the deceased had a history of depression, bipolar disorder, and suicidal tendencies.
The Court observed that while the deceased had named the petitioners in his suicide note, this alone was insufficient to establish guilt. It noted that the deceased had a history of making threats to implicate others and had previously used abusive language against the petitioners. The Court concluded that the evidence did not prima facie show that the petitioners had instigated or aided the suicide.
This decision underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in cases of abetment of suicide, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of instigation or aid. It serves as a reminder that not every dispute or quarrel within a family leads to criminal liability. The mental state of the deceased and the context of the alleged acts must be carefully considered to determine culpability.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.