The supreme court (SC) has observed that a person cannot be charged for abetment of suicide merely because the alleged abettor had used harsh words in a fit of rage.
NEW DELHI: The supreme court (SC) has observed that a person cannot be charged for abetment of suicide merely because the alleged abettor had used harsh words in a fit of rage. “Words uttered in a fit of anger without any intention cannot be termed as instigation,” a bench of justices Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma observed, dismissing the appeal of a father who claimed his son committed suicide after his daughter-in-law called the deceased “impotent” and “ugly”.
The SC also took into consideration various inconsistencies in the statements and complaint made by S Ramakrishna, father of the deceased, against his widowed daughter-in-law, S Shanti Sree, while dismissing the appeal.
The couple had an arranged marriage. But differences cropped up within a few days of their marriage as Shanti, who is fair complexioned, repeatedly humiliated her husband Venkateswara Rao by calling him “impotent” and “ugly”.
Unable to bear the alleged harassment, Rao reportedly committed suicide in a lodge in Machlipatnam town in Andhra Pradesh’s Krishna district.
On the basis of a complaint lodged under IPC section 306 (abetment to suicide), police registered a case, but the AP high court (HC) quashed the criminal proceedings after Shanti approached it.
Aggrieved by the HC’s order, Ramakrishna filed an appeal in the SC.
According to the SC, as the marriage was an arranged one, both the bride and groom had sufficient time to see each other. Hence, the allegation that Shanti had dubbed the
deceased “ugly” cannot be believed.
“The alleged grievance of the accused that the deceased was an ugly man could not have been noticed after marriage, for the first time on June 3, 2004. The date of marriage was May 29, 2004,” the bench pointed out.
According to Ramakrishna, his son committed suicide after Shanti called the deceased “ugly” and “impotent” on June 3.
The bench added that there was no suicide note left behind by the deceased to substantiate the father’s allegation.
Accordingly, the SC found no reason to interfere with the HC’s order.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}