How a coward , fool, idiot, weak, frail could blame others for committing suicide, Madras High Court

Chennai, July 13:  “For the wrong decision taken by a coward, fool, idiot, a man of weak and frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed for having abetted the suicide”.  Justice P. Devadass, said while acquitting a man accused of driving a young woman to end her life in Tiruchi.

Most of those who commit suicide leave a note behind blaming someone or the other for their decision. Observing that, the Madras High Court Bench here has held that courts should not solely rely upon such notes to jump to the conclusion, as reported by thehindu.com.

The people named in the notes may not be guilty of the offence of abetment of suicide.

“The contents of a suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined. This would find out whether it is abetment within the meaning of section 306 (abetment of suicide), read with 107 (abetment) of the Indian Penal Code.

“There may be cases where Section 306 may not get attracted against those named in suicide note,” he said.

Mahila court imprisoned Manikandan for 10 years

The judge set aside the conviction and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment imposed by a Mahila Court in Tiruchi. A youth named Manikandan had been accused of being responsible for the suicide of a college girl in 2011. When he continued to pester her in his attempt to win back her love ever since they fell out following a misunderstanding.

 The act committed by the accused would not attract the provisions of Section 306. Because he had not instigated, provoked or pressurised the victim to commit suicide. Justice Devadass said, “The act alleged to have been committed by the accused, must have played a key role for the victim to take a decision to commit suicide.

If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination or if a litigant commits suicide because his case was dismissed, the lover, the examiner or the lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide”.

The judge also pointed out that, the family members of the victim had turned hostile before the trial court by stating that she committed suicide only because of unbearable stomach pain.

Further, the genuineness of the suicide note left behind by the victim was also under question.

Though handwriting experts had vouched for its genuineness, the victim’s sister had deposed that it was she who wrote the suicide note. This coupled with the prosecution’s failure to produce before the trial court the victim’s original handwriting, which was given to the experts for comparison, raises suspicion, the court said.