DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT MERE HARASSMENT OR USE OF ABUSIVE LANGUAGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

A single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla passed a judgment dated 01.07.2024 in the matter of Manoj Kumar vs. the State NCT of Delhi., Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.REV.P.) 814/2022 & Criminal Miscellaneous Application (CRL.M.A.) 24925/202 and observed to establish a Charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (Abetment of suicide), it is essential to demonstrate clear instigation or provocation. The mere use of unforgiving words or abuse, no matter how reprehensible, immoral, or even unlawful they may be, does not meet the essential requirements for prosecution under Section 306 of the IPC.

FACTS:

1) That the above-mentioned, Criminal Petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi (High Court) by one, Manoj Kumar (Petitioner) against the State NCT of Delhi (Respondent), that challenged the Impugned Order dated 23.09.2022, passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-02 (Trial Court), North, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in SC No. 391/2021 arising out of F.I.R No 355/2022, registered with Police Station, Jahangir Puri, Delhi for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, whereby the Ld. Trial Court has framed a Charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the Petitioner herein.

2) On 22.07.2020, a PCR call reported that a boy had committed suicide by hanging himself. This information was lodged under DD No.74A.

3) The mother of the Deceased, Smt. Beena returned home with her younger son after work, when she discovered her elder son hanging from the fan hook using a chunni, with the main gate open. When she found him, she raised an alarm and with the help of neighbours, they brought him down. They then rushed him to BJRM Hospital, where doctors pronounced him dead.

4) Further, at the incident site, the Authorities recovered a Suicide Note, a ledger, and the chunni. In the Suicide Note, the Deceased alleged that the Petitioner was the reason for his suicide. Moreover, the Deceased stated that he had lent Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) to the Petitioner before the COVID-19 Nationwide Lockdown. During the Lockdown, the Deceased suffered business losses and repeatedly asked the Petitioner to return the money as he was in dire need.

5) Consequently, on 20.07.2020, the Petitioner called the Deceased to his car under the pretext of returning the money but threatened to make his life difficult if he continued demanding it.

6) Further, on 23.07.2020, the Post-Mortem of the Deceased, conducted under PM No. 601/2020, concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. Subsequently, the Authorities registered FIR No. 355/2020 with Police Station Jahangir Puri for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC against the Petitioner.

7) During the investigation, the Authorities obtained the Deceased’s bank account details from the Union Bank of India and the handwriting samples were analysed by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The FSL Report confirmed that the handwriting matched the Deceased’s admitted signatures.

8) Further, the Ld. Trial Court has framed charges against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 23.07.2022 of the Trial Court, the Petitioner filed the present Petition.

Trial Court

The Ld. Trial Court observed that on 22.07.2020, a PCR call reported a boy’s suicide, leading to the discovery of a Suicide Note implicating the Petitioner. Further, the Trial Court observed that the note stated that the Petitioner owed the Deceased Rs. 60,000/- and had threatened him when he demanded repayment.

Moreover, the post-mortem confirmed death by hanging, and forensic analysis matched the handwriting in the suicide note with the Deceased’s. Based on this evidence, the Ld. The trial Court framed charges against the Petitioner under Section 306 of the IPC.

DELHI HIGH COURT:

Aggrieved, by the decision of the Ld. Trial Court, vide Impugned Order dated 23.09.2022, that framed charges against the Petitioner for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the Petitioner filed the present petition.

ISSUE:

I) Whether the Petitioner could be charged under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide based on the evidence presented, particularly the alleged suicide note left by the Deceased.

II) Whether the Court needed to determine if there was sufficient material to substantiate the Charge that the Petitioner had instigated or intentionally aided the Deceased in committing suicide.

OBSERVATION:

i) The High Court observed that the only material implicating the Petitioner under Section 306 of the IPC was the alleged Suicide Note left by the Deceased.

ii) Further the Court held that upon examining the Suicide Note, the Court found that it only indicated the Deceased blaming the Petitioner for his suicide but did not show any instigation or encouragement from the Petitioner to commit suicide. Mere refusal to repay a loan cannot make the Petitioner guilty of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.

iii) The High Court further emphasized that abetment requires instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide. Mere harassment or use of abusive language does not constitute abetment unless there is evidence of intent to provoke the deceased to commit suicide.

iv) Consequently, the High Court noted the FSL Report, which indicated uncertainty regarding the handwriting and signature on the suicide note, casting doubt on its authorship.

v) The High Court highlighted the principles of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Cr.P.C., (Discharge) which allow the Judge to sift and weigh evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists. The Court must consider the broad probabilities, evidence, and any basic infirmities in the case.

vi) Applying the legal principles to the present case, the High Court found insufficient material to frame charges against the Petitioner under Section 306 of the IPC. The actions attributed to the Petitioner, though possibly reprehensible or immoral, did not suffice to frame Charges of abetment of suicide.

CONCLUSION:

Based on aforementioned facts, the Delhi High Court found that there was insufficient material to frame Charges against the Petitioner under Section 306 of the IPC. Further, the Court noted that the Suicide Note, the primary piece of evidence, did not demonstrate that the Petitioner instigated or encouraged the Deceased to commit suicide. Additionally, the FSL Report cast doubt on the Suicide Note’s authorship.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Impugned Order dated 23.09.2022 of the Trial Court and discharged the Petitioner from the Criminal Case arising out of FIR No. 355/2020. The Petition was allowed, with no order as to costs, and the pending Application was also disposed of.

 

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer