Skip to main content

Madras HC clarifies fate of persons mentioned in suicide notes; not all are abettors

Tamil Nadu tops the suicide chart in the country and 'victims' cite such petty reasons as verbal abuse by teachers or spouses, to serious reasons such as dowry harassment by inlaws or intimidation by creditors.

Can everyone named in suicide notes left behind by the victims be treated as 'offenders', prosecuted and jailed for 'abetting' or instigating the suicide?

Clarifying all these vital factors in the backdrop of sound legal principles, Justice P Devadass of the Madras high court has said that merely because a person has been named in a suicide note, courts should not immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender. Mere abuses or reprimanding someone or casual remark or words stated in a fit of anger could not be termed 'abetment' and people named in the suicide note could not be treated as 'abettors' of suicide, he said.

"If a person makes an ordinary joke or a casual remark in routine course of ordinary lie, and then if the victim commits suicide, that will not attract abetment charges under Section 306 IPC," said Devadass. "Simple abuses are not sufficient to provoke the victim to commit suicide. Simply because the lender has demanded repayment of his money, if the debtor commits suicide, the creditor cannot be said to have abetted his suicide. Mere reprimanding does not amount to instigation. Words stated in a fit of anger will not amount to abetment. Casual remark of husband towards his wife in the ordinary course of life will not amount to abetment to commit suicide," he elaborated.

What, then, will attract the instigation charges?

Justice Devadass said: "The offence of abetment requires 'mens rea' (guilty mind). There must be intentional doing/aiding or goading the commission of suicide by another.

If a person's name is found mentioned in a suicide note, instead of straightaway treating him as an instigator for the tragic end, authorities should examine contents of the suicide note and the circumstances, the judge said.

"There may be a case wherein the suicide note had named a person who is responsible for the suicide, but on proper analysis, Section 306 may not be attracted."

Noting that suicide is self-killing and self-murder, where an individual terminates his own physical existence, the judge said our law tackles the menace indirectly by making any attempt to commit suicide a punishable offence under Section 309.

Justice Devadass was passing orders on a bail plea of a 20 year old youth who was arrested on April 1, after a 15 year old girl left behind a suicide note saying she was forced to take the extreme decision because the boy's love did not allow her to concentrate on her studies and that it would humiliate her entire family. Prosecution opposed bail for the youth saying the suicide note clearly mentioned his name and hence he could not be released on bail.

Granting him bail and rejecting the prosecution objections, Justice Devadass said that there was no overt act by the youth that forced the girl to commit suicide. "For her foolish decision, the youth cannot be blamed. There was no intentional doing or instigation on his part, provoking her to commit suicide."

"A person may die like a coward. On his failure in examinations, a student may commit suicide. They are weak-minded and persons of frail mentality. For their foolish mentality/decision, another person cannot be blamed."

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Madras-high-court-clarifies-fate-of-persons-mentioned-in-suicide-notes-not-all-are-abettors/articleshow/34544710.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even