Mere mention of a person’s name in suicide note not sole basis for trial in abetment of suicide case: Delhi HC

The High Court further observed that it has to be shown that the accused “did an active act or direct act” which led the deceased to commit suicide, “seeing no other option”. It also has to be shown, the court said, that accused’s act “must have been intended to push” the deceased into such a position that they committed suicide. Further, the prosecution has to show that the accused had the “mens rea to commit the offence”, the court underscored. Mens rea, refers to criminal intent.

Justice Ohri further said that abetment involves a “mental process of instigating” a person or “intentionally aiding” a person in doing a thing.

The High Court further said, “…specific act of the accused has to be seen in light of the surrounding/attending circumstances of each case to determine if the same could be attributed as the cause of suicide in the case”.

The High Court made the observations while dismissing a woman’s plea who had claimed that her husband had committed suicide due to “harassment suffered at the hands of his daughter-in-law and her parents”.

After investigation, the police filed a final report concluding that “no concrete evidence except the suicide note came on record linking” the accused persons with the commission of offence. The petitioner woman filed a protest petition against the final report which was dismissed by a magisterial court and this decision was upheld by the sessions court. Thereafter the woman moved the High Court.

Justice Ohri, after perusing the “undated suicide note”, said that “neither any details have been given nor any specific incident has been mentioned”, which might have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The court also said that the Call Detail Record analysis of the deceased also did not indicate any act on behalf of the daughter in law and her parents which can termed as having abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

“On the other hand, the statement of an independent witness…would show that the deceased was under stress, on account of his own conduct of transferring possession of the house to a stranger, during the pendency of the proceedings between the said witness and him. The date of hearing in the said case was four days before the date of the incident. The witness has stated that the deceased was reprimanded by the court for his conduct and also directed him to file (a) reply. The deceased was stated to be visibly tense inasmuch as he was stated to be mumbling to himself outside the court,” the High Court noted.

It thereafter said that in this case, apart from the accused person’s name in the suicide note, no other fact had been placed on record to show what act was committed by the accused persons leading to the deceased committing suicide. It said that no fact had been placed on record to “show the connect between” the deceased and accused persons from March 9, 2014 the day when the daughter-in-law left the matrimonial home.

Dismissing the woman’s plea, the High Court said that orders passed by the magisterial court as well as the sessions court do not warrant any interference, adding that the petitioner had “failed to put forth any evidence” which shows that these orders are incorrect or inconsistent with the legal principles.