The court established that mere financial distress and harassment do not constitute abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306 without clear intent to instigate such a decision.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed, inter alia, challenging the order on charge dated 06.01.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed in SC No. 734/18 arising out of FIR No. 351/18 (‘FIR’), registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), West District, Tis Hazari Courts discharged the accused respondents of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:

2.1. On 04.07.2018, the husband of the petitioner/ complainant committed suicide by hanging himself from a ceiling fan at his home. During search of the victim’s body, a suicide note was found in the pocket of his shirt and taken into custody. Subsequently, on 10.07.2018, the FIR was registered against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences under Sections 306 /506/34 of the IPC on the basis of the statement of the petitioner. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim used to ply his own vehicle and also run a general store at their home. Allegedly, at the instance of the victim, Respondent No.2 had advanced a loan of Rs.15 lakhs to one Sharif Khan, who had repaid only a sum of Rs.4 lakhs. In addition to the said sum, the victim had also taken a loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 used to frequent the house of the victim regularly to demand repayment of the loan with interest. Allegedly, Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 (son of Respondent No.2) used to threaten the entire family and they used to tell the victim that he would be sent to prison or kidnapped if the loan amount was not repaid. Allegedly, the accused persons frequently disturbed the victim through calls as well.

2.2. On the date of the incident, Respondent No.2 had telephonically demanded the money from the victim and badly threatened him. After receiving the call, the victim told the complainant that Respondent No.2 had asked him to return the money on the same day or to commit suicide. Allegedly, the victim told the petitioner that it would be better to commit suicide than to get humiliated on a daily basis. Thereafter, the petitioner along with her mother-in-law had gone to the grocery shop. On return, when the petitioner’s mother-in-law went inside the house, she saw the victim hanging from the ceiling fan. When the petitioner entered the room, she found that the victim’s mobile phone was ringing and it was Respondent No.2 who was calling the victim.

2.3. The note which was recovered from the victim mentioned that he was committing suicide due to harassment by Respondent No.2. It was mentioned that the victim had borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from Respondent No.2 and given a blank cheque against the same, and Respondent No.2 was making demands for repayment after adding interest at the rate of 10%. It was further mentioned that Respondent No.2 had taken lakhs of rupees from the victim, but he was threatening to send the victim to jail. The translation of the suicide note of the victim (extracted from a translated copy of the FIR that is attached with the petition) reads as under:

“I Vijender Singh am taking this step due to Dal Chand Yadav. I had borrowed a sum of Rs.150000/ - from him and in lieu of that I had given a blank cheque who is now saying after calculating interest@ 10% it become 25 lakhs rupees. He had taken lakhs of rupees from me and threatened me to send in jail due to harassment caused by him I am taking this st