Social media, movies normalising multiple love affairs, infidelity; aping Western culture leading youth to unwarranted results: Allahabad HC

Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The high court noted that in the present matter, the victim hopped between relationships and in the end, out of frustration committed suicide

While dealing with a case where a girl had committed suicide after alleged boyfriend's abetment, the Allahabad High Court observed that in order to ape the Western culture, Indian youth is spoiling their lives by getting into free relationships and not finding any real soulmate in the end.

The bench of Justice Siddhartha said that the youth in this country, under the influence of social media, movies, tv serials, and the web series being shown, are not able to decide about the correct course of their life and in search for their correct soulmates, and they often land up in the company of a wrong person.

"The social medial, movies, etc., show that multiple affairs and infidelity to the spouse are normal and this inflames the imagination of impressionable minds and they start experimenting with the same, but they do fit in the prevailing societal norm," said the court. 

Court added that the young generation, unaware of the consequences of following the Western culture is entering into the relationships being aired on social media, movies, etc., and after denial of social recognition for their choice of partner, they become disillusioned and behave, sometimes against the society, sometimes against their parents and sometimes also against the partner of their choice.

Court noted that in the present matter, it appeared that the victim had multiple affairs, and when her relationship with one boy was resisted by the family and she got trapped between two relationships, out of frustration she committed suicide. 

The court was hearing a bail plea filed by one of the alleged boyfriends of the deceased girl who had been booked under Sections 306, 504, 506 of the IPC. 

The prosecution case was that the accused had victim had a love affair, and since the accused used to threaten her and gang-raped her twice, she went into depression and killed herself. 

The victim had consumed All-Out mosquito repellant and died the next day. The case was lodged by the mother of the deceased. She had alleged that her husband had also died due to the threats extended by the accused and his friends. 

However, the counsel for the accused submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the matter as the complaint lodged by the deceased's mother mentioned one other boy who had an affair with the deceased. 

The accused's counsel apprised the court that the relationship between the deceased and the other boy was opposed by her family and owing to this issue, she had started living separately in a rented house. 

He contended that even though there was no evidence of abetment of suicide of the deceased and no positive action of the accused for the same had been stated by the witnesses, still he had been implicated in the matter.

On the other hand, the state counsel, along with the counsel for the deceased's mother, submitted that the accused did not like the deceased's relationships with other boys and used to threaten her if she married any of them, therefore, the victim was forced to commit suicide. 

The high court found that initially the accused and the victim had a relationship which was opposed by the girl's family. Thereafter, the girl developed a relationship with another boy, even though her relationship with the accused had not been completely over. 

"Between the two relationships, the deceased could not find out any clear way and therefore, it appears that she consumed the mosquito repellant," opined the court. 

Further, court found that the initial allegation of abduction and murder in the FIR were had been found incorrect by the investigation officer and the ingredients for constituting the offence of abetment of suicide were also not prima facie present against the accused, the high court allowed bail to the accused.

Case Title: Jai Govind @ Ramji Yadav v. State of UP