One Can Be Frenzied Or Hysterical Even On Minute & Momentary Disagreement Resorting To Extremities: Calcutta HC While Quashing Abetment Of Suicide Case
The Calcutta High Court, while quashing an abetment of suicide case, observed that a person can be frenzied or hysterical even on minute and momentary disagreement resorting to extremities.
The Court observed thus in a revisional application seeking to quash the proceeding pending before the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay held, “One can be frenzied or hysterical even on minute and momentary disagreement resorting to extremities which cannot be termed as an instigation, inducement or abetment to commit suicide. The allegations improbabilized the commission of a cognizable offence in the F.I.R.”
Advocate Amartya Ghosh represented the petitioners while Advocate Avishek Sinha represented the respondent.
Brief Facts -
The petitioner woman married son of the complainant in March 2010 and resided separately at the annoyance of the complainant and his wife. In October 2010, the complainant learnt that his son (victim) committed suicide by hanging himself in his dining room with a nylon rope at night. Subsequently, he lodged a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners.
Allegedly, the victim’s death was due to suppression of an earlier marriage of the petitioner which caused him to suffer mental agony compelling him to commit suicide at the instance of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a petition for discharge in May 2012 before the Trial Court and the same was objected by the State. The Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioners from being discharged and hence, they approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “The victim had on his own locked the petitioner wife in the room from outside and hanged himself. It was beyond the knowledge and control of the petitioner wife to have imminently rescued the victim from hearing himself. Human psychology and mental state cannot be generally equated which varies from person to person.”
The Court added that egregious act on the part of a person from intractable emotions, depressions cannot be perceived or fathomed.
“Being an adult male, the victim had ample volition and liberty to communicate with his family members disregarding the displeasure of the petitioners. Candidly the victim if at all exasperated by the act of the petitioners could have left their company and resided with his family members. Moreover, the document denoting the marriage of the victim and the petitioner wife indicated her status to be that of a divorcee at the time of marriage with the victim. Therefore, the suppression of the earlier marriage of the petitioner’s wife to the victim and his family was eventually obliterated”, it further noted.
The Court emphasised that in order to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, there should be instances of abetment under Section 107 IPC immediate or proximate instigation should be exceedingly grave in nature frustrating the victim to an extent of resentment, despair and anguish impelling him to commit suicide.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revisional application and quashed the case.
Cause Title- Joyeeta Saha & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Amartya Ghosh, Siddhartha Paul, and Souryadeep Ghosh.
Respondent: Advocate Avishek Sinha
