Mere mention in suicide note not enough to prove guilt: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, February 23

In a significant judgment liable to change the way abetment to suicide cases are adjudicated, the Punjab and Haryana HC has ruled that the guilt of an accused would not be established by itself merely because of being named in a suicide note until the ingredients of the offence were made out.

Referring to a plethora of judgments on abetment, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi asserted that there must be a proximate and live link between the occurrence and the subsequent suicide to constitute the offence. Instigation or illegal omission or commission at the hands of the accused “must be the only factor, which subsequently led to the committing of suicide”.

Link vital

There must be a proximate and live link between the occurrence and the subsequent suicide to constitute the offence. —Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, High Court

Justice Bedi added that the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide was imperative to constitute the offence of abetment. The ruling came on a petition for quashing an FIR registered in May 2019 for abetment and common intention under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC. Directions were also sought to quash all subsequent proceedings arising from the matter.

Justice Bedi’s Bench was told that the “deceased” was initially beaten up by a close relative of the petitioner-accused. He was reversing the car when the incident took place. The state counsel added that the FIR in the assault matter and the suicide note established that the petitioner and the co-accused were threatening and harassing the “deceased”, which ultimately led to his death by suicide.

Justice Bedi asserted that taking the contents of the FIR and the suicide note to be the gospel truth, the

petitioner approached the “deceased” at a Civil Hospital to threaten him and his family in February 2019, whereas the “deceased” committed suicide on

May 16, 2019.

There was nothing on record to establish that the petitioner threatened the “deceased” or his family in any way during the three-month intervening period. There was, rather, no evidence of any contact between the “deceased” and his family with the petitioner. “Thus, it is established that there is no proximate and live link between the alleged threats given in February 2019 and the subsequent suicide in May, 2019,” Justice Bedi added.

Allowing the plea, Justice Bedi asserted there was no positive act on the petitioner’s part to instigate or aid in the committing of suicide. “From the allegations and the record, it is not established that the petitioner-accused intended to push the deceased into committing the suicide. The issuance of the alleged threats three months prior to the suicide without any positive act of instigating would not by itself create an offence under Section 306 of the IPC,” he said.