Read Time: 08 minutes
Court noted that the suicide note only had allegations and there was nothing to show that the girl and her brother had instigated the deceased for suicide
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently quashed the order of framing charge against a girl and her two brothers for abetting the suicide of girl's ex-boyfriend.
The bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu said that "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," it added.
The court was dealing with a writ petition moved by the girl and her two brothers against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dongergarh, District Rajnandgaon.
The judge below had framed charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the girl and under Section 306/34 against her brothers.
The prosecution case was that on January 28, 2023, the police received an intimation regarding the unnatural death of the deceased. In the course of inquiry, a suicide note left behind by the deceased was seized, in which allegations were made against the girl and her brothers.
As per the contents of the suicidal note, the deceased and the girl were in a love relationship for about 5 to 7 years and suddenly the girl broke up with him and developed a love affair with some other boy. The letter further mentioned that the brothers of the girl were threatening the deceased for life and due to these reasons, he had committed suicide by hanging.
Before the high court, the counsel for the accused persons argued that there was no material on record which prima facie established that they, by doing any positive act, had instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide.
He placed reliance on the decisions in cases of Swamy Prahladdas v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1995), SC Cheema vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) and a few other cases to buttress his submissions.
On the other hand, the plea was opposed by the counsel for the government who submitted that the accused were specifically named in the suicide note and the decease had killed himself only being fed up with the betrayal and threats.
The high court referred to Section 107 of IPC, which defines 'abetment', and Section 306 of IPC which provides punishment for 'abetment of suicide, and noted that to constitute abetment within its meaning under Section 107 read with 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," it stressed.
Court pointed out that the only incriminating evidence against the accused was the suicide note and it contained only allegations and there was nothing in suicide letter to even suggest that the accused had done any instigation i.e. continuous harassment and torture or goading or provocation.
"Prima facie it is appearing from suicide note that the deceased was in deep love with applicant No.1, he could not tolerate betrayal in love by applicant, her decision to marry with some other boy, therefore, out of frustration in love, he committed suicide, blaming applicant No.1 as a person or rather a cause which compelled him to take such an extreme step," court noted.
It also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Geo Verghese vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr (2021), where the top court had quashed an FIR registered under Section 306 of IPC.
Case Title: Ku. Pooja Chopra and Others v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Please Login or Register
