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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...