In suicide note, apart from victim blaming petitioner for his decision to kill himself, there is not even a whisper of petitioner ever instigated him or even hinted at him to commit suicide: Delhi HC discharges man accused of abetting suicide over loan dispute
Justice Navin Chawla [01-07-2024]
Read Order: MANOJ KUMAR v. STATE NCT OF DELHI [DEL HC- CRL.REV.P. 814/2022]
LE Correspondent
New Delhi, July 11, 2024: The Delhi High Court has discharged a man accused of abetting the suicide of another person over a loan dispute. The court held that mere refusal to repay a loan cannot make the accused guilty of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“There is insufficient material to frame charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner. Howsoever reprehensible, immoral and even unlawful, may have been the action attributed to the petitioner, the same cannot suffice to frame charge under Section 306 of the IPC against him,” the High Court held.
The case arose from an incident in July 2020, when a man committed suicide by hanging himself. In a suicide note recovered from the scene, the deceased alleged that the reason for his suicide was attributable to the accused, Manoj Kumar.
“A reading of the Charge-Sheet would show that the only material to implicate the petitioner for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, is the alleged Suicide Note left the deceased… A reading of the above Suicide Note would show that apart from the deceased blaming the petitioner for his decision to commit suicide, there is not even a whisper of the petitioner ever instigated him or even hinted at him to commit suicide,” the Delhi High Court observed.
“Mere refusal to repay the loan, cannot make the petitioner guilty of 'abetment of suicide’ under Section 306 of the IPC,” held a bench of Justice Navin Chawla.
The note stated that the deceased had given a loan of Rs. 60,000 to Kumar before the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, and during the lockdown, the deceased suffered losses in his business. Despite repeated requests for the return of the money, Kumar allegedly refused to repay the loan and even threatened the deceased. The police registered an FIR against Kumar under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide. The trial court framed charges against Kumar, leading him to file a revision petition in the Delhi High Court.
The High Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments -- Mahendra K C v. The State of Karnataka & Anr, Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh, M. Arjunan v. State Rep. By Its Inspector Of Police, Union Of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr among others -- that clarified the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC, which include the abetment and the intention of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
The court noted that there should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide, and mere allegations of harassment would not suffice unless there are actions that compelled the commission of suicide.
The High Court thereby set aside the Impugned Order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, North, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in SC No. 391/2021 titled State v. Manoj Kumar and discharged the petitioner in the above criminal case arising out of FIR No. 355/2020 registered with Police Station: Jahangir Puri for offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to stay up to date on our product, events featured blog, special offer and all of the exciting things that take place here at Legitquest.
Add a Comment