Delhi High Court: In the applications filed by the petitioners (‘accused persons’) under Section 4381 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the grant of anticipatory bail for an offence registered under Sections 3062 and 343 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Ravinder Dudeja, J., stated that a person’s emotional or mental vulnerablity due to depression and other psychiatric problems is a big factor to be considered in a case of abetment of suicide. Therefore, in such cases, higher proof of instigation is required.
Thus, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court directed that in the event of the arrest of the accused persons, they should be released on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer.
Background
The accused persons submitted that the deceased had suicidal tendencies and was undergoing psychiatric treatment from various hospitals. He was diagnosed with psychiatric issues i.e. depression, hypertension, schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder (‘OCD’) and was on psychiatric treatment and medicines since 1998 till his death.
The deceased used to force Accused 2, i.e., his wife, to have unnatural sex with him. He sexually abused her repeatedly and even his sons were witnesses to it. The behaviour of the deceased towards his family was cruel and abusive. It was stated that on 20-4-2024, the deceased left the house without informing the family and returned on 23-4-2024. A missing report was filed and the deceased later returned to the house and started abusing his wife.
It was argued that even though the deceased was under treatment for his psychiatric condition, his condition was worsening. He was chronic abusive person in nature, habitual drunkard and was in regular contact with number of prostitutes.
On 29-4-2024, the deceased had unnatural sex with the wife and physically abused and assaulted her so much so that she started crying loudly and on hearing the same, both her sons rushed to their parents’ room. It was submitted that the accused persons mustered the courage and made a PCR call, and on the wife’s complaint, the FIR was registered under Sections 377, 3234 and 5065 of IPC.
On the night of 30-4-2024, the deceased committed suicide by consuming Celphos tablets, and it was the accused persons who took him to the hospital for treatment. Further, in the suicide note circulated by him, through WhatsApp, the deceased named the accused persons for being responsible for his death and this was done with a view to falsely implicate them as a counterblast to the FIR lodged against him.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the abetment was constituted by instigating a person to commit an offence or engaging in a conspiracy to commit it or intentionally aiding a person to commit it. Mere harassment might not be enough for abetment. There must be active instigation. Mere quarrels or fights in a marriage or family, do not amount to abetment.
The Court observed that there was plethora of medical records, which showed that the deceased was suffering from depression and OCD. The deceased had a clinical history of abnormal behaviour. He had suicidal tendency and bipolar disorder. He was undergoing treatment and was taking anti-depressants. He was on psychiatric treatment since 1998. The Court stated that the status report of the police was silent about the medical record of the deceased. Thus, medical record is not disputed at this stage. The Court stated merely because the deceased was continuing with the job, did not mean that he was not having such ailment.
The Court stated that a person who was emotionally or mentally vulnerable due to depression and other psychiatric problems, was a big factor to be considered in a case of abetment of suicide. In such cases, higher proof of instigation was required. Every case of suicide does not amount to abetment and therefore, the Court must see whether the conduct of the accused was such that a normal person, not merely a hypersensitive one, would have been driven to suicide. The standard was what a reasonable person would do and not someone who was unusually sensitive and unstable.
After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court directed that in the event of the arrest of the accused persons, they should be released on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer with the condition that they should join the investigation as and when directed. Further, they should not come in contact with any of the witnesses of this case and should not try to threaten or intimidate them.
[A v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2800, decided on 29-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Amit Chadha, Senior Advocate with Nishant Singh, Sounava Karmakar, Harjas Singh, Jyoti Bajaj and Saarthak Sethi, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Aman Usman, APP with SI Satyander, PS- SP Badli.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
