The Delhi High Court has clarified that ordinary quarrels or disputes within a marriage or family do not by themselves prove the offence of abetment of suicide.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, in a detailed order, explained that for someone to be held guilty of abetment, there must be clear instigation, conspiracy, or intentional help given to the person who died by suicide.
“Mere harassment may not be enough for abetment. There must be active instigation,” the Court said.
The bench highlighted that not every case of suicide amounts to criminal abetment. In situations where the person who died was suffering from mental health issues such as depression or psychiatric disorders, the Court must seek stronger evidence of instigation.
“In such cases, higher proof of instigation is required. Every case of suicide does not amount to abetment and therefore the Court has to see whether the conduct of the accused was such that a normal person, not merely a hyper-sensitive one, would have been driven to suicide,” the Court noted.
The observations were made while granting anticipatory bail to a man and his wife who were accused of causing the death of the woman’s husband. The deceased had consumed Celphos tablets and ended his life.
As per the case details, the wife had filed an FIR against the deceased, accusing him of unnatural sexual acts. After learning about this complaint, the man reportedly ended his life. Before doing so, he had also threatened to implicate the petitioners by writing a suicide note.
The prosecution opposed the bail, stating that before his death, the deceased had circulated a WhatsApp message where he alleged that he was tortured and poisoned by the petitioners.
In contrast, the petitioners presented medical records to support their defense. They showed that the deceased had been under treatment for depression, had a history of abnormal behavior, suicidal tendencies, and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
The Court also reviewed recorded conversations submitted by the petitioners. These revealed that the deceased had used abusive language against them. Importantly, the Court noted that he had threatened to falsely implicate them through a suicide note.
“Merely because some persons are named in the suicide note, they cannot be presumed to be guilty,” the Court stated.
After analyzing all the facts, medical history, and communications, the Court ruled that the conditions for abetment were not satisfied in this case. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused, reinforcing that emotional stress or mere family fights do not meet the legal test of abetment of suicide unless direct and intentional actions by the accused are proven.
Title: ANSH JINDAL v. State and other connected matter
