Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

"No Proximity Between Alleged Act and Suicide": Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Abetment Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today upheld the acquittal of Rani Devi and others in a case involving the alleged abetment of suicide of Jagan Nath. The court, presided over by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, emphasized the lack of direct connection between the accused's actions and the suicide, stating, "there is no proximity between the alleged act of the accused-respondent and suicide of the deceased."

The case, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 306 for abetment of suicide, stemmed from the suicide of Jagan Nath, who was allegedly harassed over a monetary dispute. The petitioner, the State of Haryana, challenged the earlier acquittal, citing suicide notes that blamed the respondents for the deceased's extreme step.

However, the court observed that "mens rea, which forms the basis of instigation of this extent, is also completely missing." The court relied on Supreme Court precedents that require clear mens rea (intention) for conviction under Section 306 IPC. The court referred to the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reiterating that without a positive act of instigation or aiding in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

Furthermore, the court cited the recent Supreme Court judgment in Mohit Singhal and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and others, highlighting the necessity for an act of instigation to be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide. The High Court found no such proximity in this case.

In its judgment, the High Court also discussed the appellate court's role in reviewing acquittal cases, emphasizing the principle that if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the one favoring the accused should prevail.

This judgment reaffirms the stringent standards required for proving abetment to suicide, a significant aspect in criminal law, underscoring the necessity of clear intention and direct connection between the accused's actions and the suicide for a conviction. The dismissal of the appeal by the High Court marks the conclusion of a closely watched legal battle, setting a precedent for future cases of a similar nature.

DATE: 11th December 2023           

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RANI DEVI AND OTHERS  

Latest Legal News