Allahabad High Court: Rahul Chaturvedi, J., held that the age of the girl, her personality, her upbringing, the social and financial status of her family, etc. are the factors to be considered while deciding the question of harassment of a girl whose photos are posted online in an attempt to defame/disgrace her.
Applicant in the instant application has invoked the Court’s power under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 who was in jail under Sections 306, 504, 507 of Penal Code, 1860.
Applicant’s counsel submitted that he was falsely implicated by the deceased’s mother.
It was submitted by the informant that accused had been calling upon her mobile and hurling filthy abuses and extending all sorts of threats to her. The applicant had posted objectionable pictures with her minor daughter and floated them on social media, Instagram, etc. and abusive messages just to insult and disgrace her minor daughter.
Suicide
Due to the above-stated incidents, deceased had undergone deep depression and eventually, she committed suicide by hanging herself by the neck and took her last breath in a local private hospital.
It was also contended that there is nothing on record to suggest that applicant at no point of time abetted or goaded the deceased to self-immolate herself and thus do not fall within the purview of Section 306 or 107 IPC.
Analysis and Decision
Mother of the deceased had settled her daughter’s marriage with Chottu, which was unacceptable to the applicant, Kunal by way of retaliation, he made all the pictures taken with the deceased in public over social media, Instagram, etc.
The above-said action on the part of the applicant with the sole objective to defame/disgrace the deceased so that her marriage may be dissolved before being solemnized.
Accused defamed the deceased in public, abused her mother, got her marriage annulled before it could be solemnized and created all sorts of hurdles in the life of the deceased.
Due to the above circumstances, she was left with no other option and hence committed suicide during her minority.
Legal Aspect of the issue:
Applicant’s Counsel submitted that the applicant is innocent and the deceased was hypersensitive girl, who took the extreme step without any abetment or goading from the applicant.
Abetment as a Crime
For the purposes of “abetment” involves a mental process of instigating a person in doing something.
A person abets the doing of a thing when
(i) he instigate any person to do that thing; or
(ii) he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or
(iii) he intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omissions, the doing of that thing.
The above are the essentials to complete the abetment as a crime.
So far a particular person’s reaction to any other human’s action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same.
Bench added to its analysis that, even in regard to the factors related to the question of harassment of girl, or attempt to defame/disgrace her by posting her photographs in Social-media and Instagram, these factors come into play. The age of the girl, her personality, her upbringing, the social and financial status of her family, rural/urban setups, education etc. cumulatively affects her entire persona. Even the response to the ill-action of eve-teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence, her family atmosphere and background, age, upbringing etc.
Hence every case has to be dealt on its own facts and circumstances.
Assessing the facts of the present case, the Court stated that posting the pictures, photos of the deceased girl on Social-media by the present accused within few days before her death of that girl who was going to marry another boy, the reason and objective behind was obvious and needed no explanation.
Applicant’s Counsel failed to make out any case for bail and accordingly, the bail was rejected. [Kunal v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39864 of 2020, decided on 01-12-2020]
Advocates who appeared in the matter:
Counsel for Applicant :- Pandey Balkrishna
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Raghav Ram
