Supreme Court sets free woman others in case of abetment to suicide by 'love scandal'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set free a woman, her husband and two others in a case of abetment to suicide of a man in 2009 after allegedly trapping him in a 'love scandal' to extract money.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. 

"Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence," the bench said.

Allowing the appeal, the court, in a recent judgment, found no any act of incitement on the part of the appellants, Patel Babubhai Manohardas and others, proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. 

Besides, the delayed and controversial circumstances under which the suicide note surfaced, made it highly suspect, the court pointed out.

Even after taking the suicide note as correct and genuine, the court said no act was attributed to the appellants, proximate to the time of suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. 

"In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants," the bench said.

The appellants were held guilty and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment by Mehsana court in 2011. The Gujarat High Court confirmed judgment.

Complainant Jayabalen claimed her husband Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai was trapped by Geetaben, cleaning worker in his office. She along with her husband, mother and a relative got various photographs and videos of him with her in compromising position. They blackmailed him for money and even took away signed cheques and passbook and jewellery of her daughter, forcing her husband to indulge in misappropriation in his office also.

The court, however, found the incident had taken place on April 25, 2009 but the FIR was lodged against the accused on May 14, 2009 after upon the recovery of suicide note.

"Though delay in lodging of first information is not always fatal, the unexplained delay of 20 days would have a material bearing on the prosecution case," it said.

The court also noted the police did not make any recovery of any jewellery, signed cheques or cheque book or passbook of the deceased. 

"The very sub-stratum of the prosecution case that the accused persons were making illegal gain by blackmailing the deceased falls flat," the bench said.

The court also noted there was no recovery of any trace of the poison consumed by the deceased at the place of occurrence.

The bench also pointed out the suicide note was sent to the forensic examination and the handwriting was found to be of the deceased.

However, the prosecution did not examine the handwriting expert as an expert witness and the accused had not  admitted genuineness of the report.