Merely Being Named in a Suicide Note Does Not Establish the Offence Which Must Be Made Out on the Basis of Allegations Levelled – Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR in Abetment of Suicide Case
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings against two individuals accused of abetting the suicide of Anil Kumar. The court held that the allegations and evidence presented did not substantiate their involvement under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide.
Legal Background:
The case revolves around the accusations against Sushil Kumar Yadav and Naresh Kumar (petitioners), who were alleged to have exerted financial pressure on the deceased, leading him to commit suicide. The initial FIR was lodged based on a suicide note recovered from the deceased, which named the petitioners as responsible for his dire state due to unpaid debts.
Factual Matrix:
According to the FIR filed by Suresh Kumar, brother of the deceased, Anil Kumar was found hanging at his residence on April 20, 2022. A subsequent investigation revealed a suicide note attributing his extreme step to the pressure of repaying loans to the petitioners, who allegedly threatened and pressured him over financial matters. Statements from the deceased’s wife and other witnesses supported these claims, suggesting a backdrop of continuous harassment over money owed.
Detailed Court Assessment:
The court meticulously analyzed the elements required for constituting abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306. It observed that mere naming in a suicide note and demands for debt repayment do not conclusively establish abetment. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi noted, “For abetment to occur, there must be a direct act of instigation or active complicity, which was conspicuously absent in this scenario.” He further referenced several precedents which distinguished actionable instigation from mere allegations of harassment or pressure related to financial transactions.
The judgment elaborated on the necessity of establishing a proximate link between the accused’s actions and the act of suicide, which was not demonstrated by the prosecution. The court underscored the importance of discerning whether ordinary prudence would lead a similarly placed individual to end their life under the given circumstances, which it found unconvincing in the present case.
Decision: Given the lack of evidence pointing to intentional inducement or assistance in the act of suicide by the petitioners, the court ruled that continuing the proceedings would lead to a miscarriage of justice and misuse of judicial processes. Consequently, the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed.
Date of Decision: May 6, 2024
Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Yadav & Another v. State of Haryana & Another
