A charge of abetment of suicide requires proof of clear mens rea and a positive, active, or direct act by the accused that incites or facilitates the act, leaving the deceased with no choice but to end their life.

ORDER :

G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J.

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No. 151 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, thereby had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, as against the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in the proceedings in S.C.No. 151 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri and the case of the prosecution is that the deceased fell in love with the first petitioner who is none other than the maternal uncle’s son. The first petitioner had gone to abroad for his vocation. Though the deceased and her parents were willing for her to marry the first petitioner, the first petitioner and his father and mother viz., A2 & A3, declined to consent to their marriage and they did not take any steps to marry the deceased with the first petitioner. Therefore, on 29.08.2021, at about 2.45 p.m., the deceased came in front of the second petitioner’s house and consumed poison. Further, the second and third petitioners failed to take any steps to take the deceased to the hospital. Another relative viz., sister of the deceased’s mother and her husband had taken the deceased to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri. She was declared brought dead by the hospital authority. Hence, the second respondent, being the mother of the deceased, lodged a complaint and on receipt of the same, the first respondent registered the FIR under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.448 of 2021. After completion of investigation, they filed final report for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC as against the petitioners and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No. 151 of 2022. To quash the said proceedings, the petitioners filed the present petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

4. On perusal of the records and on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is revealed that the deceased is the none other than the aunt’s daughter of the first petitioner. According to the second respondent, the deceased fell in love with the first petitioner when she was 17 years old. The second and third petitioners are none other than the father and mother of the first petitioner. Thereafter, the first petitioner had gone abroad. All the petitioners did not take any steps to marry the deceased with the first petitioner. On 29.08.2021, at about 2.45 pm., the deceased herself went to house of the petitioners and in front of their house, she consumed poison. Immediately, she was taken to the hospital and she was declared “brought dead”.

5. It is not the case of the prosecution that soon before her death, she was abetted by the petitioners to commit suicide. On perusal of the statement recorded from the mother of the deceased, it is revealed that the deceased fell in love with the first petitioner 12 years prior to the incident and the petitioners had also assured them that they would get the deceased married to the first petitioner. Thereafter, the first petitioner went abroad for his vocation. Therefore, on the date of the alleged occurrence, the first petitioner was not present and he was in abroad. In fact, it is not the case of the prosecution that the first petitioner directly refused to marry the deceased. Even assuming that the petitioners refused to marry the deceased with the first petitioner, it would not amount to abetment of suicide.

6. Further no one has spoken that A2 & A3, soon before the death of th