Skip to main content

Suicide note not proof enough for abetment charge

A suicide note alone is not proof enough to charge someone with abetting a suicide, the Bombay high court has said in a decision that is likely to spur a debate on the contentious issue.
The HC ruled last week that one cannot be held guilty of abetment “merely because a relationship fails”.
There must be evidence of the accused having “intentionally aided, or instigated” the victim to end his or her life.
The ruling came while the court was hearing an appeal filed by the state against a recent sessions court judgment.
According to the state’s plea, the lower court had erred in acquitting Mumbai resident Anurag Singh, whom police had charged under section 306 and section 495 of the IPC for abetment and concealment of marriage.
The prosecution said despite being already married, Singh had made a false promise of marriage to the deceased, who was a third-year college student.
One day the young woman came to his house unannounced and discovered that he was living with his wife. She then came back home and hanged herself. Police found a suicide note by her bedside in which she had blamed Singh for her death.
The sessions court, however, dismissed the note, questioning its authenticity.
Justice Abhay Thipsay of the Bombay high court, who was presiding over the matter, rejected the state’s appeal, saying “even if the court was to believe in the genuineness of the suicide note, the note alone would not be enough to hold Singh guilty under section 306”.
He said “merely because a relationship does not work out” and one of the two people ends his or her life, the other person cannot be held guilty of abetment.
“A study of the case laws on abetment reveals that even if a person commits suicide because of being tormented by the accused, the accused cannot be held guilty of abetment unless there is proof that he goaded or encouraged the victim to end her life,” Justice Thipsay said while dismissing the state’s appeal.
“Besides, the accused must have possessed the knowledge or intention that his acts would lead the person to commit suicide. Without knowledge or intention, there can be no abetment.”

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/suicide-note-not-proof-enough-for-abetment-charge-rules-hc/story-ZSaEhaKVfSJuahkS1N4hlL.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a