Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

For The Wrong Decision Taken By A Man Of Weak Or Frail Mentality, Another Person Cannot Be Blamed As Having Abetted His Committing Suicide: Delhi High Court Grants Bail In Abetment Of Suicide Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today granted pre-arrest bail to two individuals, Aarushi Gupta and Rishab Nayyar, accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly abetting the suicide of a mutual acquaintance. Justice Amit Mahajan emphasized, “For the wrong decision taken by a man of weak or frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide.”

The case, registered under FIR No. 294/2023 at Police Station Vivek Vihar, accused Gupta and Nayyar of instigating the deceased to end his life following a confrontation that allegedly escalated to threats and derogatory remarks. The prosecution relied heavily on a suicide note and the testimony of the deceased’s father, who claimed his son was driven to despair by the actions and words of the applicants.

The defense argued that the suicide note's timeline was inconsistent with known facts, such as the timings of the deceased’s conversations and actions on the day preceding his death. They contended that there was a lack of direct evidence connecting the applicants to the act of suicide and highlighted past incidents where the deceased had exhibited suicidal tendencies unrelated to the applicants’ actions.

Justice Mahajan meticulously analyzed the requisites for abetment to suicide, referring to precedents that clarified the need for active instigation or intentional aiding of the suicide act. The court noted, “Merely because a person’s name is mentioned in a suicide note, it does not automatically lead to the conclusion that they instigated the suicide.”

The judgment referenced several pieces of evidence, including WhatsApp chats and third-party testimonies, which suggested that the deceased had a history of emotional instability and had previously threatened self-harm during disputes.

Justice Mahajan also pointed to the Supreme Court’s observation in Geo Verghese v. The State of Rajasthan, asserting that not every act of pressure or conflict can be construed as abetment to suicide.

Decision Concluding that the evidence did not substantiate a direct link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s suicide, the court granted bail to both applicants. The bail conditions included a surety of ₹50,000 each, restrictions on travel without notice, and mandates against tampering with evidence or contacting the complainant and witnesses.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2024

Aarushi Gupta vs. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr; Rishab Nayyar vs. State GNCT of Delhi & Anr

 

Similar News