Woman can't be held for abetting suicide of 'lover': HC
In a recent verdict, the Delhi High Court declared that a woman cannot be held responsible if a man commits suicide due to a failed romantic relationship. The statement was made by Justice Amit Mahajan while granting anticipatory bail to two individuals implicated in an abetment of suicide case. The case was initiated following an FIR lodged against the pair by the deceased's father, accusing them of instigating the suicide of his son, who was romantically involved with the female.
Justice Mahajan clarifies position on abetment of suicide
Mahajan provided clarity on the issue, stating, "If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide." He further explained that another individual cannot be held accountable for the misguided decision made by someone with a fragile mindset.
Court examines evidence in suicide case
The deceased's mother found his body along with a note blaming the defendants for his decision to end his life. However, the court found no evidence in the note suggesting threats severe enough to push an average person toward contemplating suicide. The court also observed from WhatsApp conversations that the deceased was emotionally sensitive and frequently threatened self-harm when the female defendant refused to engage with him.
Court dismisses allegations of abetment under Section 306 IPC
The court emphasized that the alleged suicide note "only expressed a state of anguish" of the deceased toward the applicants, but it "cannot be inferred that the applicants had any intention." It highlighted that allegations of applicants teasing him about his failed romantic relationship did not constitute instigation or abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court concluded that custodial interrogation of the defendants was unnecessary.
Court sets bail terms and clarifies observations
In the event of an arrest, the court declared that the defendants would be granted bail upon providing a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with two sureties of a similar amount. The court further stated that if the applicants break the terms stipulated in the ruling, the police are free to file a plea to cancel their bail. However, it clarified that its observations should not influence the trial's outcome or be interpreted as an opinion on the case's merits.
