- Mere allegations of harassment or pressure doesn’t make an individual accountable for suicide. Proof of an act done is necessary.
- Only a positive act which led the deceased to commit suicide will attract offence under section 306 of the IPC.
- Section 306 of the IPC defines abetment of suicide as any direct or indirect incitement of an individual to commit suicide shall be punished with imprisonment and fine.
- In this case there was no sign of the CEO instigating and abetting a suicide. It was a mere allegation by the wife for harassment and that cannot be concluded as an abetment for the deceased’s suicide.
- This case was registered in the Andhra Pradesh High Court with a bench consisting of justice Subba Reddy Satti J.
- The wife of the deceased had lodged a complaint against the chief executing officer alleging that her husband who worked as a clerk for nine years in the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society committed suicide because of the work pressure by her.
- It was alleged that since there was a delay in the collection of the loans, the higher officers kept pressurising the husband for its collection. This led to him committing suicide.
- The petitioner claimed that the day the victim committed suicide, he had gone for an assignment tour with the other officials to represent training programme organized by the society and nothing was attributed against the petitioner, with regard to abetment or instigation.
- Furthermore, she was the CEO and as per the procedure, the President was responsible for giving instructions regarding recovery of loans the CEO and she had no direct contact with the deceased who was the Secretary of the Society.
- The court placed reliance of two case laws - Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan where it was held that mere allegation is not abetment.
- And second being - M. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu that only harassment is not a sufficient ingredient for attracting section 306 of the IPC.
- Considering the facts of the case the court held that there was not enough evidence to conclude that the CEO had abetted the suicide.
- Hence the court granted anticipatory bail to the CEO due to the ingredients prima facie not being made out for section 306 of the IPC.
"Loved reading this piece by Krisha Mehta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
