Quick Take
Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed.
The Supreme Court ruled that insults alone, like calling someone “impotent”, do not comprise abetment to suicide. The court overturned a lower court’s ruling, saying there was no evidence of provocation or persistent cruelty that led to the man’s suicide
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.