Abusive Language Will Not Constitute Abetment Of Suicide
Abusing Not Abetment To Suicide
“There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.” The Supreme Court observed that an act of insulting a person by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide.
Allowing the appeal filed by a man declared guilty for abetting suicide, the bench comprising of Justice R Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that there should be an evidence capable enough of suggesting that the person accused intended by such act to instigate the decease to commit suicide.
In this case, the accused Arjunan had given a sum of Rs.80, 000 by way of debt to Rajagopal. According to the prosecution, due to the alleged torture by the accused, Rajagopal committed suicide leaving a suicide note stating that he was unable to repay the loan and was taking the extreme step. The trial court held the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
Taking into account Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the bench, on an appeal filed by the accused, said: “The essential elements of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (I) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The action of the accused, however, insulting and disrespecting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused had an intention by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be held guilty under Section 306 I.P.C.”
Setting aside the conviction, the court further observed: “Having given the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused shall have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. From the evidence presented and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are not established and the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be held.”