Insults Like "Impotent" Not Abetment To Suicide: Supreme Court
New Delhi:
Insults like "impotent" cannot be considered abetment to suicide, the Supreme Court ruled today while letting an accused couple walk free.
The couple's son-in-law had died by suicide and his family had accused them of abetment on basis of a visit when harsh words were used and the daughter was forcibly taken home by her parents.
The man died by suicide a month later. In his suicide note, he had accused his in-laws of harassment and said they had called him "impotent".
The Madras High Court had refused to cancel the police case against the in-laws. But overturning the High Court's judgment, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice AG Masih said the note does not directly indicate provocation or persistent cruelty.
Only hurtful remarks or abuses do not establish provocation, the judges said, pointing out that the man died a month after the alleged incident of humiliation took place. There was no contact between him and his in-laws in the intervening period.
"Merely because the act of the accused is highly offensive to the deceased, would not by itself constitute abetment to suicide," the judges said, referring to the definition of abetment under the law.
"The suicide note does not prove that the accused provoked the deceased or subjected him to any persistent cruelty or harassment, which is part of the offence of abetment to suicide," the judges said.
"Intent cannot be inferred. It must be clearly present and visible, which is missing in the present case," they added.
The court said to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there have to be intention of the accused to aid and abet the deceased to commit suicide. There have to be instigation, conspiracy and aiding the person in suicide.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stays trial against former Haryana IAS officer in Manesar land case
The Supreme Court has stayed trial proceedings against former Haryana IAS officer Rajeev Arora in the Manesar land deal, investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The former IAS officer had petitioned the apex court after his revision petition challenging his summoning by a special CBI court was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana high court on May 15. A special CBI court had on December 1, 2020 ordered that the former IAS officer be summoned to face trial for committing offence under section 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the Manesar land matter. However, on a revision petition filed by Arora, the Punjab and Haryana high court on December 14, 2020 had stayed the operation and implementation of the order of the special CBI court. Rejecting the challenge to the special CBI court's December 1, 2020 order, the HC on May15 said it found no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by learned special CBI court in summoning the petitioners. An apex court bench headed by chief justice BR Gavai, however, on May 29 ordered that notice be issued to the respondents and 'proceedings qua the petitioner (Rajeev Arora) shall stand stayed till the next date of hearing.' During the trial court proceedings on Friday, Special CBI judge, Rajeev Goyal while referring to the apex court's order of May 29 ordered that proceedings against all the accused persons except Rajeev Arora shall commence. The special court in its June 6 order noted that it is, therefore, seen that all the accused except accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba, DR Dhingra and Rajeev Arora, have been ordered to be charge-sheeted qua the offences as detailed in the order December 1, 2020. The court said that now arguments need to be advanced on charges in respect of accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra. Learned defence counsels seek time to prepare the arguments. Learned senior public prosecutor Harsh Mohan Singh submits that charge-sheet may kindly be framed against the accused persons who have already been ordered to be charge-sheeted vide order dated December 1,2020. 'I am not able to accept the submission made by the senior public prosecutor as it will not be appropriate to frame charge-sheet before considering the case concerning framing of charges in respect of accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra. In case, the court after hearing contentions of the said accused persons and senior public prosecutor for CBI, concludes that charges are required to be framed against said accused persons as well, then a consolidated charge-sheet qua all the accused persons shall be framed and in my opinion, it will be more appropriate if such a course is adopted, for framing charge-sheet in a piecemeal manner is not desirable. As such, to come up on July 10, 2025 for arguments on charge qua accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra,'' ordered the special court.
New Indian Express
33 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Kilmar Abrego Garcia returns to US after Trump administration 'trafficked' him to El Salvador
Democrats and immigrant rights group had pressed for Abrego Garcia's release, with several lawmakers — including Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, where Abrego Garcia had lived for years — even traveling to El Salvador to visit him. A federal judge had ordered him to be returned in April and the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by directing the government to work to bring him back. But the news that Abrego Garcia, who had an immigration court order preventing his deportation to his native country over fears he would face persecution from local gangs, was being brought back for the purpose of prosecution was greeted with dismay by his lawyers. The case also prompted the resignation of a top supervisor in the US attorney's office in Nashville, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter. Ben Schrader, who was chief of the office's criminal division, did not explain the reason for his resignation but posted to social media around the time the indictment was being handed down, saying: 'It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons.' He declined to comment when reached by The Associated Press on Friday. Abrego Garcia's lawyer calls charges 'preposterous' 'This administration ... instead of simply admitting their mistake, they'll stop at nothing at all, including some of the most preposterous charges imageable," Sandoval-Moshenberg said. Ama Frimpong, legal director with the group CASA, said Abrego Garcia's family has mixed emotions about his return to the US. 'Let him talk to his wife. Let him talk to his children. This family has suffered enough,' she said. Sandoval-Moshenberg said Abrego Garcia is one of the first, if not the first, person released from a notorious prison in El Salvador, though he was later imprisoned at another facility. 'So it's going to be very interesting to hear what he has to say about the way in which he was treated,' the attorney said. The indictment, filed last month and unsealed Friday, lays out a string of allegations that date back to 2016 but are only being disclosed now, nearly three months after Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported and following the Trump administration's repeated claims that he is a criminal. It accuses him of smuggling throughout the US thousands of people living in the country illegally, including children and members of the violent MS-13 gang, from Central America and abusing women he was transporting. A co-conspirator also alleged that he participated in the killing of a gang member's mother in El Salvador, prosecutors wrote in papers urging the judge to keep him behind bars while he awaits trial. The indictment does not charge him in connection with that allegation.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Cash controversy: SC should allow filing of FIR against justice Varma, says Dhankhar
Vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday asserted that in the backdrop of the indictment of justice Yashwant Varma by a panel appointed by the Supreme Court in the 'cash' seizure case, the judiciary should have given permission for launching criminal proceedings against him. Dhankhar, during a meeting with the executive committee members of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association led by president, Sartej Narula at Punjab Raj Bhawan in Chandigarh on Friday morning, also said that the present government at the Centre is 'handicapped' in the given scenario and can't register an FIR due to a Supreme Court judgment, passed three decades ago. 'It (judgment) provides virtually impregnable cover. Unless permission is accorded by a functionary at the highest level in the judiciary, an FIR can't be registered,' Dhankhar remarked. 'The permission (to register FIR) should have been given on the very first day. …A compulsive, expedient situation should have been there because the mechanism evolved is the same. Second, it could have been given at least after the report,' added Dhankhar, who arrived in Chandigarh on Thursday. After spending a day at the Punjab Raj Bhawan, he headed to Himachal Pradesh. Dhankhar emphasised that judges need protection because they make 'tough decisions and cannot be subjected to investigation in a routine way. 'But the facts of this case warranted a proper probe,' he stated. While referring to the panel of three judges set up by the Supreme Court, Dhankhar, questioned the sanctity of the committee and said, whether the report submitted is 'actionable' and whether this committee can substitute for an FIR investigation. Dhankhar equated those indulging in corruption with 'sharks' and said that they must not be spared. He underlined that no other constitutional office has immunity from facing criminal action while in office. The President and the governors have immunity from prosecution only till they are in office, he further remarked. Dhankhar appreciated the role of Bar associations in the country in picking up this issue and said that lawyers are 'watchdogs' of democracy. On May 5, a three-member in-house enquiry committee submitted its report to the then CJI confirming that cash was indeed found at the residence of justice Varma in March, then a sitting Delhi high court judge. Acting on the same, then CJI Sanjiv Khanna initiated the process for the removal of justice Varma by writing to the government. Reports suggest that the government might move an impeachment motion against justice Varma in the Monsoon session.
