Mere opposition to the relationship of the son with the deceased, on one occasion, without anything more is not sufficient to attract the offence of abetment to suicide on a mother and sister, observed the Bombay High Court.
The court has discharged the mother and daughter from the charges of abetment to suicide after they allegedly opposed the relationship of Amol Dabhade with the deceased due to her caste.
"Amol was in a love relationship with the deceased for a considerable period of time. In the present facts, mere expression of opposition of the applicants to the relationship on one occasion without anything more is not sufficient to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. In my view, a plain reading of Section 306 of IPC and applying it to the undisputed facts of the present case indicates that none of the ingredients are attracted to the case at hand," Justice MS Karnik said on March 6.
Details of case
The HC was hearing a plea filed by Amol’s mother, Mangal, and sister, Trupti, after their discharge pleas were rejected by the sessions court.
In 2018, the mother of the deceased filed an FIR against Amol Dabhade alleging that his engagement with another girl despite being in a relationship with the deceased, compelled her to take her own life.
The mother added Mangal and Trupti’s names in the subsequent statement alleging that they opposed Amol and her daughter’s relationship, and hence abeted her suicide. Also, they allegedly insulted and abused the deceased on the basis of her caste. The police booked Mangal and Trupti under the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
State advocate Prajakta Shinde said that a friend of the deceased also indicated opposition from the Amol’s family members to their relationship.
The high court, referring to a Supreme Court judgement. Said that to establish abetment, it must be proven that the accused directly or indirectly instigated or aided in the commission of suicide.
"Mere opposition to a relationship is insufficient to establish abetment"
In the present case, the court said that mere opposition to a relationship is insufficient to establish abetment under the IPC. The court concluded that even if the allegations made by the complainant and the prosecution were true, the applicants did not instigate or conspire with others to induce the deceased to commit suicide.
Justice Karnik noted that the main accused, Amol, was in a long-term romantic relationship with the deceased, and while there were statements of opposition to their marriage by Mangal and TArupti, the same are vague and lacked substantial evidence.
The court expressed that it was unfortunate where the victim, an airhostess, took her own life due to a strained relationship. “In my view, a plain reading of Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of IPC and applying it to the undisputed facts of the present case indicates that none of the ingredients are attracted to the case at hand,’ justice Karnik underlined while discharging the mother-daughter duo.
