It has been said that mere torture does not constitute a case of abetment to suicide. In a case of abetment to suicide, unless there is an active role for the abetment, a case of abetment to suicide is not made out on the ground of abetment alone. Supreme Court Justice L. The bench headed by Nageswara Rao said that the person accused of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC should have an active role in the act of abetment.
what was the matter
This case is of Madhya Pradesh. According to the police, on September 10, 2014, a man named Firoz allegedly had a marital dispute with his wife. The wife went home with her daughter. From there, the family members did not allow the wife and daughter to come, that is why Firoz Khan committed suicide by consuming poison. He wrote in his suicide note that his wife and daughter were not sent by the accused. He is committing suicide because of the torture that happened to her. Firoz’s brother complained to the police in this matter and citing the suicide note, requested to file a case of abetment to suicide against the accused. The police registered a case against the accused in the case of abetment to suicide. After the charge sheet in the lower court, charges were framed against the accused. Against this decision, the accused filed an application before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court allowed the application of the accused. After which the brother of the deceased approached the Supreme Court in this matter. In the Supreme Court, the brother of the deceased had argued that the High Court had made a mistake in the decision. There have been statements of 10 witnesses in the case. Also, the suicide note of the deceased was cited under which it was said that the accused had tortured him.
Active role required for provocation
The Supreme Court, in its decision, said that according to the provision of Section 306 of the IPC, there should be an active role in the case of abetment against the accused in the case of abetment to suicide. Or he must have acted in such a way that it is evident that he has facilitated the suicide. The accused should have an active role in the provocative action. In the case of abetment to suicide, the mere act of abetment to suicide does not constitute a case of abetment to suicide without an active role for abetment and without a positive role. The Supreme Court further held that abetment to suicide is necessary or such an act must be done so as to create such a situation that the person who dies has no option but to commit suicide. There is an allegation of torture in the present case. But there is no material to abet suicide, so there is no flaw in the High Court’s decision and the application is dismissed.
[Attribution to NBT]