Continuous Stalking & Death Threats For Refusing Marriage Constitute Instigation For Suicide: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that continuous stalking, harassment, pressure to marry, and repeated death threats for refusing marriage constitute a "positive act" of instigation capable of attracting the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court observed that the conduct of the accused clearly demonstrated a continuous course of conduct constituting...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that continuous stalking, harassment, pressure to marry, and repeated death threats for refusing marriage constitute a "positive act" of instigation capable of attracting the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court observed that the conduct of the accused clearly demonstrated a continuous course of conduct constituting instigation rather than isolated acts of harassment.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas was hearing the State's appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, who had been charged under Section 306 IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of a young woman. According to the prosecution, the respondent persistently harassed the deceased to marry him and repeatedly threatened to kill her as well as her mother if she refused. It was alleged that the sustained harassment pushed the deceased into severe mental distress, ultimately leading her to die by suicide. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove instigation and had not examined a handwriting expert to establish the authorship of the alleged suicide note.
Examining the law on abetment of suicide, the Court reiterated that Section 306 IPC requires proof of a positive act of instigation or intentional aid, coupled with the requisite mens rea. Referring to decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court observed that mere harassment is insufficient, but a continuous course of conduct that compels the victim to perceive suicide as the only escape may amount to instigation.
“… if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide,” the Court observed.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the testimony of the deceased's mother consistently established that the respondent repeatedly stalked and harassed the deceased, threatened to kill her and her family if she refused to marry him, and continued his conduct despite intervention by the police and village Panchayat. The Court also noted that the deceased had earlier attempted suicide by cutting her wrist due to the respondent's harassment.
The Court held that this evidence clearly demonstrated a continuous course of conduct constituting instigation rather than isolated acts of harassment. It observed that the trial court had committed serious errors by placing undue emphasis on the absence of handwriting expert evidence regarding the suicide note.
The Court emphasized that expert opinion is merely corroborative and cannot outweigh direct and reliable evidence establishing the accused's conduct. The Court further held that the cumulative evidence established a proximate nexus between the respondent's acts and the deceased's suicide, and that the trial court's findings were perverse.
The Court noted that an appellate court may reverse an acquittal where the trial court has ignored material evidence and the only reasonable view emerging from the record is one of guilt. It held that the present case satisfied those requirements.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the judgment of acquittal, convicted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, and directed that the matter be listed separately for hearing on the question of sentence.
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Mohd. Seraj [ACQA No. 96 of 2020]