Merely Being Named In Suicide Note Won’t Establish Culpability Of Accused Until Ingredients Of Offence Are Made Out: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court said that merely being named in a suicide note would not establish culpability of an accused until the ingredients of an offence are made out.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A Single Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed, “… to constitute abetment, there must be a proximate and live link between the occurrence and the subsequent suicide inasmuch as the instigation or illegal act of omission or commission at the hands of the accused must be the only factor which subsequently led the deceased to commit suicide. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of an accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. There must be a positive act on the part of an accused to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Further, merely being named in a suicide would not by itself establish the culpability of an accused until the ingredients of an offence are made out.”

Advocate Prashant Singh Chauhan represented the petitioners while DAG Rajiv Goel represented the respondents.

Factual Background -

An FIR was registered at the instance of the brother of the deceased with the allegations that the wife of the deceased called him stating that her husband had strangulated himself. When the complainant reached home, he found the deceased hanging from the fan with a rope and hence, he was taken to the hospital where the doctor declared him dead. On being searched by a doctor, a suicide note was found with the names of the petitioners (accused). The supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded to the effect that he had fully satisfied himself that there were monetary transactions between his brother (deceased) with the petitioners who were threatening and pressurizing him because of which his brother had committed suicide.

The statement of the wife was also recorded wherein she stated that her husband would remain under-stress on account that the petitioners were demanding their money from him. She further stated that even on the day of the incident, he was under mental stress and in her absence, committed suicide by hanging himself wit a rope on a fan. The petitioners were arrested and hence, they were before the High Court seeking quashing of FIR against them.

The High Court in the above regard noted, “… while dealing with a petition for quashing of an FIR under Section 306 IPC, the test that the Court must apply is the reaction of a normal person of ordinary prudence when faced with incidents of harassment. If the Court feels that the level of harassment faced was such that even a person of ordinary prudence with normal behaviour and reactions would be forced to take the extreme step of committing suicide, then the Court would do well in not quashing proceedings.”

The Court added that if the court comes to the conclusion that an ordinary person with normal reactions to harassment would not commit suicide but the deceased did so on account of his hypersensitive nature or other contributing factors then the court must not hesitate in quashing the proceedings.

“… a perusal of the FIR, the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the suicide note do not disclose any specific incidents of acute harassment which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In fact, there has been absolutely no positive act on the part of the petitioners to aid or instigate the deceased for committing suicide. From the allegations and the from the record it has not been established that the petitioners intended to push the deceased to such a situation that he would ultimately commit suicide”, it observed.

The Court further took note of the fact that the deceased was pressurized to return the loan amount received by him from the petitioners and nothing more and apparently, a person of ordinary prudence would not have committed suicide in similar circumstances but the deceased did due to his hypersensitive nature.

“… where a person succumbs to the pressure of his debt and the creditor is taken as an abettor to his suicide simplicitor, the legitimate interest of a person asking for his own money in a reasonable manner would be harmed in every such case. … Keeping in view the aforementioned principles in mind and on an examination of the FIR and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and 173(8) Cr.P.C. the uncontroverted allegations levelled in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same clearly do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners. 

Cause Title- Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Yadav & Another v. State of Haryana & Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:061769)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate Prashant Singh Chauhan

Respondents: DAG Rajiv Goel and Advocate Himanshu Rao.

Click here to read/download the Judgment