The Supreme Court ruled that insults like “impotent” do not amount to abetment to suicide, setting aside the Madras High Court’s order and stating the suicide note lacked direct provocation or persistent cruelty.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court set-aside a Madras High Court ruling, freeing a couple accused of abetting their son-in-law’s suicide. The case stemmed from the son-in-law’s death a month after a visit from his in-laws, during which harsh words were exchanged, and their daughter was forcibly taken home.
His suicide note accused his in-laws of harassment and stated they had called him “impotent.”
Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih stated that the suicide note lacked direct evidence of provocation or persistent cruelty.
Also Read: Lawyer’s Suicide Case || SIT Arrests Deputy Superintendent of Police Kanakalakshmi
The court emphasized that hurtful remarks alone do not constitute provocation, especially considering the month-long gap between the alleged humiliation and the suicide, during which there was no contact between the deceased and his in-laws.
The judges clarified that,
“Merely because the act of the accused is highly offensive to the deceased, would not by itself constitute abetment to suicide.”
They further stated that the suicide note did not demonstrate that the accused provoked the deceased or subjected him to persistent cruelty or harassment, essential elements for the offense of abetment to suicide.
The court emphasized the necessity of clear and visible intent to aid and abet the suicide, stating,
“Intent cannot be inferred. It must be clearly present and visible, which is missing in the present case.”
The judges said,
“A single word ‘impotent’ used in the suicide note does not remotely indicate that there was any provocation or persistent cruelty by the accused.”
The Court also observed that there was no clear proof in the suicide note that the man was being mentally harassed continuously or that his in-laws had pushed him to such a state of mind that he had no other option but to end his life.
The Supreme Court concluded that to establish abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there must be evidence of the accused’s intention to aid and abet the deceased in committing suicide, involving instigation, conspiracy, or direct assistance in the act.
This judgment is important because it gives guidance on how courts should look at emotional matters like suicide and make sure that only genuine cases of mental harassment are punished under the law. It also protects people from being unfairly dragged into criminal cases where there is no strong proof of their direct role in the death.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
