Mere refusal to repay loan not an act of abetment to drive deceased to commit suicide: Jammu & Kashmir HC

feature-top

Read judgment: Gauri Devi vs. State of J&K

Pankaj Bajpai

Srinagar, August 31, 2021: While discharging the petitioner for commission of offences u/s 306 IPC, The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has ruled that mere refusal to repay the loan cannot in any way can be considered to be an act of abetment to drive the deceased to commit suicide.

The Single Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that in order to constitute an offence of abetment, the act committed by the accused must be of such nature so that the deceased must be left with no other option but to take the extreme step of ending his life.

The observation came pursuant to a plea filed by the petitioner challenging the registration of FIR for abetment of suicide of her son-in-law.

The background of the case was that the petitioner, Gauri Devi had borrowed money from one Shyam (deceased), who himself had borrowed money from few persons. When the lenders started to harass him, Shyam asked the petitioner to return the money leading to verbal altercation between the two.

Subsequently, deceased said that he would kill himself in case the petitioner did not clear her dues towards him. On this, the petitioner told that she had no money to return, which prompted the deceased to take the extreme step by inflicting injury with a knife in the chest.

Resultantly, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner at Police Station Nowabad, Jammu,  for offence u/s 306 of the IPC, leading to framing of charges by the ADSJ, Jammu.

The High Court found that the deceased committed suicide when the petitioner refused to return the amount of Rs. 73,000/- to the deceased, which she had taken from GhanShyam, who happens to be her son-in-law.

In order to charge a person for commission of offences u/s 306 IPC, there must be evidence on record that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased, added the Court.

Now, answering as to whether the allegations against the petitioner constituted an offence u/s 306 IPC, Justice Oswal opined that one can be charged for the offence of abetment only when he instigates any person to do that thing intentionally or engages with one or more other person in conspiracy for the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Hence, the High Court set aside the order passed u/s 306 IPC, opining that the ingredients of offence u/s 306 of the IPC were absolutely lacking and the Trial Court had not considered this vital aspect of the case.

Add a Comment