Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Promotion Does Not Exist Under Repealed Rules Following Policy Restructuring: Supreme Court

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

 

Latest Legal News