'Mental Health Of A Person Can't Be Compressed Into A One Size Fits All Approach' : Supreme Court In Abetment To Suicide Case

Stressing that the "mental health of a person cannot be compressed into a one-size fits all approach", the Supreme Court has criticized a High Court judgment for terming a person who died by suicide a "weakling".The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna in the present matter was considering an appeal against the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in which the Court had quashed an FIR registered against Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s 306 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 on the ground that continuation of the prosecution "would [be] a travesty of justice and be a sheer waste of time", besides requiring the accused-respondent "to undergo the rigors of a lengthy trial".While allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's judgement the bench in (Mahendra KC v State of Karnataka and Others) observed that,"The Single Judge has termed a person who decided to commit suicide a 'weakling' and has also made observations on how the behavior of the deceased before he committed suicide was not that of a person who is depressed and suffering from mental health issues. Behavioural scientists have initiated the discourse on the heterogeneity of every individual and have challenged the traditional notion of 'all humans behave alike'. Individual personality differences manifest as a variation in the behavior of people. Therefore, how an individual copes up with a threat- both physical and emotional, expressing (or refraining to express) love, loss, sorrow and happiness, varies greatly in view of the multi-faceted nature of the human mind and emotions. Thus, the observations describing the manner in which a depressed person ought to have behaved deeply diminishes the gravity of mental health issues."The bench also said that the High Court has made observations diminishing the importance of mental health. The Apex Court in this regard observed that, "The mental health of a person cannot be compressed into a one size fits all approach." Factual Background On December 6, 2016 an FIR was registered by Mahendran KC ("complainant"), deceased's brother under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Special Land Acquisition Officer ("SLAO/Respondent 2") for Bengaluru City and another driver of his car.As per the FIR, the deceased who was working as a driver for the SLAO used to travel from Bengaluru once in a month to visit the family home and meet his family and friends. On December 4, 2016 the deceased shared his anguish with the complainant and his friend Shiva Kumar that the SLAO was using his mobile and bank account to transfer funds to his relatives in the course of converting "black money into white money". He further told that since he was aware of SLAO's dealings, the SLAO together with another driver, had been threatening him with murder.The suicide note recorded by the deceased allegedly in his own handwriting contained a detailed narration of the properties which were alleged to have been acquired illegally by SLAO.The complainant had alleged that the accused had threatened the deceased with death and harassed him as a result of which the deceased, having suffered mental stress, committed suicide by consuming poison.The SLAO was arrested on December 11, 2016 and based on a complaint made by BT Suresh (deceased's friend), an FIR was registered on December 12, 2016 u/s 323, 324, 341, 342, 363, 506, 114 read with Sections 120B and 34 of the IPC.On April 18, 2017 the SLAO instituted a petition u/s 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR registered against him. The Single Judge of Karnataka High Court on May 29, 2020 quashed the proceedings relating to the complaint and the FIR on the ground that the continuation of the prosecution "would [be] a travesty of justice and be a sheer waste of time", besides requiring the accused-respondent "to undergo the rigors of a lengthy trial".Aggrieved, the State of Karnataka and the complainant had approached the Top Court.Submissions of PartiesSubmissions on Complainant's BehalfAppearing for the complainant, Advocate Mahesh Thakur submitted that since the matter was at the stage of investigation and the SLAO was enlarged on bail, the Single Judge had manifestly erred in quashing the FIR as a result of which the entire investigation was scuttled midstream. The counsel further argued that the High Court had completely failed to notice the seriousness and gravity of the allegations made against the accused.Complainant's counsel further contended that the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the complaint, if taken on their face and accepted in their entirety, clearly indicated the commission of an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC in which event it was improper for the High Court to quash the proceedings. To substantiate his contention counsel also argued that besides the suicide note, the deceased had informed both the complainant and other witnesses of the harassment which he had suffered at the hands of SLAO who had a position of influence ...

'Mental Health Of A Person Can't Be Compressed Into A One Size Fits All Approach' : Supreme Court In Abetment To Suicide Case

Shruti Kakkar

Tags