kerala High Court ruled Person can't be booked for Abetment of suicide for filing complaint against the deceased.

Nishtha Pandey 0

z
 

In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas presided over Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 7228 of 2019, stemming from Crime No. 556/2016 at Chavakkad Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioners, Murali alias Muralidharan and Sajini P.R. were accused under Sections 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly abetting the suicide of Sri. Ravi.

Section 306 0f IPC deals with the Abetment of suicide which states that 

'If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine'.

Petitioners' Challenge

The petitioners contested the final police report filed in the case, arguing that the allegations did not substantiate any criminal offence. They emphasized that two suicide notes left by the deceased, blaming them for his suicide, did not establish their guilt under the abetment laws.

Legal Arguments

Advocate S. Sreekumar, representing the petitioners, argued that merely filing a police complaint against the deceased could not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. He asserted that the act of filing a complaint is a lawful right and does not necessarily imply instigation or goading towards suicide.

Prosecution's Position

The Public Prosecutor, Smt. Sreeja V., countered that the allegations were factual and should be adjudicated through a proper trial. She highlighted that the suicide notes specifically named the petitioners, justifying the continuation of the prosecution.

Judicial Analysis

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas deliberated on the essence of abetment under Section 306 IPC, which requires direct instigation or goading by the accused leading to the act of suicide. Referring to legal precedents, the judge emphasized that mere harassment or filing of complaints does not automatically constitute abetment unless there is clear intent to drive the victim to suicide.

Court's Decision

After thorough consideration, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas concluded that the allegations in the final police report did not establish any intention on the part of the petitioners to instigate the deceased's suicide. Therefore, continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the court's process. Consequently, the court quashed the final report in Crime No. 556/2016 of Chavakkad Police Station, which was pending as C.P. No. 48 of 2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court in Chavakkad.

Legal Principles Upheld

The judgment underscored the distinction between lawful actions such as filing complaints and illegal acts constituting abetment. It reaffirmed that for abetment of suicide charges to hold, there must be a clear intent on the part of the accused to provoke or facilitate the suicide, which was not evident in this case.

In summarizing the ruling, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas reiterated that the mere act of filing a complaint with the police cannot be equated with abetment under the IPC. Upholding this principle, the court's decision in Crl.M.C. No. 7228 of 2019 serves as a legal precedent affirming the boundaries of criminal liability in cases involving suicide allegations.




Tags

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post