MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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