Naming A Man In Suicide Note Not Enough To Charge Him With Abetment, Rules Punjab And Haryana High Court

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

Case Name: A.R Madhav Rao and others v. The State of Haryana and another

Coram: Justice P.B BAJANTHRI

Punjab and Haryana High court interpreted the law related to the suicide notes in its recent judgment. The decision gives some relief to persons who are wrongly named in a suicide note. Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a person named in a suicide note does not automatically become charged just because he has been named in the suicide note.

Facts Of The Case

Iqbal Asif Khan committed suicide on 23.03.2011 who was working as a Manager, taxation with a company in Gurgaon. In his suicide note, he named 6 people as the persons who forced him to take this extreme step. All 6 people are petitioners in the instant case. Out of the 6 persons, 4 are advocates and remaining two are managers taxation in the same company as that of the deceased. Deceased was working with the company for two decades and was well versed with taxation issues of the company. A dispute related to taxes had cropped up between the company and tax authorities. To settle the dispute deceased had approached the petitioners, who had advised the deceased to file a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court. Suicide note claims that petitioners were responsible for certain alleged misdeeds and the writ petition filed mentions the same to have been committed by the deceased in the drafting of the writ petition.

The Decision of the Case and Arguments Advanced

Lawyers for the petitioner argued that writ petition in question had been decided in favour of the company and the suicide note is vague as it does not give a detailed reason as to how each petitioner is responsible in forcing the deceased to take this extreme step. Counsel for petitioners, further submitted that investigating agency till date has been unable to present rigid evidence before court linking suicide of the deceased with that of the petitioners. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner advocate for the state argued that deceased had written the name of all the six petitioners in his own handwriting and it was the petitioners who had advised him to file the writ petition. So, there was sufficient evidence to lodge criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

Learned Single judge Justice P.B Bajanthri after listening to both the parties and examining the evidence advanced dismissed the case and held that merely naming a person in suicide note does not entitle the police to charge him for abetment to suicide under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and police failed to find any wrongdoing of the petitioners. The High Court, further said that “The offence of abetment requires ‘men’s rea’ (a guilty mind) …… There must be intentional aiding or goading the commission of suicide by another. Otherwise, even a casual remark or something said in everyday conversation will be wrongly construed as abetment.”

Moreover, The Court also added that “For the wrong decision was taken by a coward, fool, idiot, a man of weak mentality, a man of frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide.”

Learning of the Case

From this case, we learn that naming a person in a suicide note is not enough to charge him with abetment under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -