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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...