‘Go and die’ remark not abetment of suicide: Punjab and Haryana HC acquits stepmother
The judgment also cautions against convicting accused persons on the basis of suspicion rather than legally admissible proof
Holding that a stray remark asking a person to “go and die” cannot by itself amount to abetment of suicide, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a woman convicted for allegedly instigating her stepdaughter to end her life.
Setting aside the conviction, the court ruled that criminal liability for abetment of suicide requires clear proof of intention and a proximate link between the accused’s conduct and the act of suicide. The prosecution, it held, failed to establish such ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.
The case stemmed from allegations that the deceased girl, aged about 16, had complained to her stepmother about alleged immoral advances by her father. According to the prosecution, the stepmother had responded that if the girl felt ashamed, she could take poison and die.
Justice Rupinderjit Chahal held that such a statement, even if accepted as true, could not constitute abetment of suicide.
“The alleged statement, even if accepted as true, at the most appears to be a stray remark. There is neither any evidence of sustained harassment by the appellant nor any proximate and live link between the alleged remark and the alleged suicide,” the court observed.
The accused stepmother was represented by advocate Nikhil Ghai.
The Bench further underlined that the offence of abetment of suicide requires proof of the necessary mental element and a clear nexus between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide.
“Criminal liability under Section 306 IPC requires proof of mens rea and a clear nexus between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide… The evidence on record does not demonstrate that the appellant intended, encouraged, or facilitated the commission of suicide,” Justice Chahal observed.
Reiterating settled principles of criminal law, the court said: “Stray remarks, without intention to instigate suicide, do not amount to abetment.”
The judgment also cautioned against convicting accused persons on the basis of suspicion rather than legally admissible proof. “The trial court appears to have proceeded on moral suspicion rather than strict legal proof. However strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of evidence,” Justice Chahal asserted, adding that the “golden thread running through criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.”
The court also noted an unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR and the absence of medical evidence establishing suicide. “The cumulative effect of the absence of medical evidence, failure to prove suicide, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, credible defence evidence, lack of mens rea and proximate instigation creates substantial doubt regarding the guilt of the appellant,” the judge observed.
Concluding that the prosecution had failed to discharge the burden of proof, the High Court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
“Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded against appellant cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of all charges,” the court ordered.
