Read Time: 07 minutes
The court observed that the deceased lover was of a sensitive nature and constantly threatened the girl of committing suicide whenever she refused to talk to him
The Delhi High Court recently granted bail to a young woman accused of abetting her lover's suicide. The court emphasized that an individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of those with a fragile mental state.
The bench of Justice Amit Mahajan stated, “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”.
The father of a young man, who tragically took his own life, filed an FIR identifying his son's girlfriend 'X', and a mutual friend 'Y' as the alleged instigators behind the suicide. According to the father’s complaint, one evening, when his son went out to meet his friends, X and Y purportedly provoked him by claiming they were involved in a physical relationship and planning to marry soon. Furthermore, they allegedly taunted the deceased about his perceived lack of masculinity, suggesting he end his life, or else they would publicize images of his damaged car window alongside photographs of him, accompanied by derogatory remarks.
Subsequently, the deceased left in a cab but returned later to find his car damaged, with his shattered glasses lying on the road. The complainant (father of the deceased) contacted Y, seeking the keys, which he had reportedly taken from the deceased, but Y refused and threatened to post pictures of the damaged car online with disparaging comments. Later, upon returning home, the deceased took his own life.
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail to the accused, asserting that the offence committed was grave, as evidenced by the deceased's suicide note implicating both X and Y.
The court noted, “A bare reading of above provision would demonstrate that for an offence under section 306 of IPC, there are twin requirements, namely, suicide and abetment to commit suicide”.
Moreover, upon examination of the WhatsApp conversations, the court prima facie concluded that the deceased displayed sensitivity and frequently warned X of contemplating suicide if communication was denied.
Additionally, the court noted that while the deceased referenced X and Y in the suicide note, there was no explicit threat therein of a magnitude capable of inducing suicide in a psychologically sound individual. The court determined that the purported taunting by X and Y regarding the deceased's unsuccessful romantic involvement with X did not constitute incitement under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
“Prima facie, the alleged suicide note only expressed a state of anguish of the deceased towards the applicants, but it cannot be inferred that the applicants had any intention, that led the deceased to commit suicide”, the court highlighted.
The court reiterated that custodial interrogation should be avoided in cases where the accused has readily participated in the investigation, fully cooperating with the investigating agency, and is not likely to flee. The bench emphasized that arrest carries significant shame, humiliation, and disgrace. The objective of custodial interrogation is to assist in the investigation, not to punish.
Accordingly, the court granted bail to X and Y.
Advocates for Applicant: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, Advocates Vineet Jain, Arjun Sanjay, Aekta Vats and Simran ChaudharyAdvocates for State: Additional Public Prosecutor Utkarsh and Advocate Urvashi Sharma
Case Title: X v State GNCT Of Delhi (2024:DHC:3027)
Please Login or Register
