{"id":1312,"date":"2024-01-04T19:51:04","date_gmt":"2024-01-04T14:21:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1312"},"modified":"2024-01-05T11:20:20","modified_gmt":"2024-01-05T05:50:20","slug":"chattisgarh-high-court-holds-that-if-a-lover-commits-suicide-due-to-love-failure-the-lady-cannot-be-held-to-have-abetted-the-commission-of-suicide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/chattisgarh-high-court-holds-that-if-a-lover-commits-suicide-due-to-love-failure-the-lady-cannot-be-held-to-have-abetted-the-commission-of-suicide\/","title":{"rendered":"Chattisgarh High court holds that if a lover commits suicide due to love failure, the lady cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ku. Pooja Chopra <\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2026\u2026Applicant<\/p>\n

Vs. <\/strong><\/p>\n

State Of Chhattisgarh\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u2026\u2026..Respondents<\/p>\n

(CRR No.1213 of 2023)<\/p>\n

(Before Hon’ble Justice Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> Applicants have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 r\/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code<\/a>, 1973 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in S.T. No.19\/2023 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dongergarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) has framed charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against applicant No.1 and under Section 306\/34 against applicant No.2 & 3. The Court<\/a> below, by impugned order dated 13.10.2023, came to conclusion that prima facie charges under Section 306 & 306\/34 of IPC is made out against applicants and accordingly framed charge against them. Feeling aggrieved by which, the applicants have preferred this revision.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the applicant is liable for abetment to suicide under section 306 IPC?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for Applicant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Learned counsel for applicants submits that the trial Court erred in framing charge against the applicants under Section 306, 34 of IPC. He submits that in order to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC, it must be specifically alleged and prima facie established on the basis of cogent material on record, that accused committed such acts which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. There is no material on record which prima facie established that applicants by doing any p<\/p>\n

ositive act, have instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. In absence any such allegation, it is not possible to find out nexus between alleged abetment and suicide. He submits that in fact, it is the case of love failure and the deceased, who was major and aware of pros & cons of suicide, has committed suicide having come to know that his lover betrayed him by developing love affair with some another boy. Hence, only on the basis of contents of suicidal note and without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of applicants herein, which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, framing of charge under Section 306\/34 of IPC against the applicants is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed submissions of learned counsel for applicants and submitted that suicide note left by deceased was recovered wherein he has categorically named present applicants and specifically stated that he is committing suicide just because of the present applicants. He submits that getting fed-up from betray by applicant No.1 and threats given by applicants, deceased committed suicide and therefore, the reason for committing suicide by deceased is nothing but instigation or abetment on the part of the applicants. Deceased has committed suicide only for the reason that applicants had created a difficult situation for him, from which he could not come out, therefore, the conduct on the part of applicants is itself an act of abetting the suicide. Hence, the trial Court has rightly framed the charge under Section 306\/34 of IPC against the applicants and prayed for dismissal of revision petition.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present revision holding that, \u201cthis Court is of the considered view that prima facie there is no material available on record to hold that petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 306\/34 of IPC. In absence of any material on record of definite nature, not imaginary or inferential one, pointing out any such circumstance remotely indicating any such act or intention on the part of applicants herein to abet the commission of suicide by deceased Abhishek Naredi, the trial Court has committed illegality in framing charge under Sections 306, 306\/34 of IPC against the applicants respectively.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The court observed that, \u201cIf a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide. For the wrong decision taken by a man of weak or frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ku. Pooja Chopra \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u2026\u2026Applicant Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2026\u2026..Respondents (CRR No.1213 of 2023) (Before Hon’ble Justice Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu)   Facts: Applicants have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 r\/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in S.T. No.19\/2023 by which learned Additional Sessions […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1322,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1312","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1312","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1312"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1312\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1359,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1312\/revisions\/1359"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1322"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}