Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on March 22, 2024 quashed a criminal case related to abetment of suicide against a woman, finding no attribution of act which was of such a drastic nature that could lead to the deceased to end his life.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Madras High Court declining any relief to Amudha who was married and was living in the USA till the time of suicide.

"Taking the charge sheet as correct, we find that there were no acts of incitement on the part of the appellant proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No act is attributed to the appellant proximate to the time of the suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide," the bench said.  

The bench, therefore, concluded no offence is made out against the appellant.

In the case, the bench also pointed out, "Apart from a general allegation that the appellant, her father and other family members used to insult the deceased and tell him to go out and die, there is no other allegation made against the appellant."

The court also noted there were four suicide notes allegedly written by the deceased. In the said suicide note, there is a general allegation against the appellant and her family members (her father, mother and brother) that they are responsible for his suicide. It is also stated therein that the local MLA had also given him a threat, and therefore, he committed suicide due to mental torture.  

"Taking the suicide note as it is, the same does not help the prosecution at all, especially when there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was in touch with the deceased on the telephone or in any other manner from 12th September 2019 (when the appellant left for the USA) to 5th March 2020 (date of incident)," the bench said.

On March 5, 2020, the deceased, Kanagasabha allegedly committed suicide by consuming poison. There was a dispute between the deceased and his elder brother Baskar alias Annamalai. Another brother of the deceased, Anandraj, had constructed a new house, which he sold to the deceased. However, the said house was occupied by Annamalai, his wife, son, and daughter Amudha (appellant).     

According to complainant, Annamalai refused to vacate the house and filed a civil suit against the deceased. Though Annamalai (co¬-accused) failed in the suit, he declined to vacate the house. Therefore, the deceased sought the intervention.of the local MLA. However, the local MLA could not resolve the dispute. The complainant has made a general allegation that Annamalai and his family members, including the appellant, used to harass the deceased by insulting him on the ground that he was a bachelor. They used to tell the deceased to go anywhere else and die. 

The court quashed the proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate II, Puducherry.

The bench, however, clarified its adjudication is confined to the appellant and the trial court is free to proceed against other accused in accordance with the law.