Delhi High Court: While hearing a petition challenging he order dated 6 January 2023 (impugned order), wherein the Trial Court had discharged Respondents 2 and 3 of the offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J, held that the mere act of levying high interest on a borrowed sum, however predatory, does not amount incitement to commit suicide unless accompanied by an overt act.
Background
The victim had taken a loan of Rs. 1.5 lakhs from Respondent 2 and had been unable to repay it. According to the petitioner (the victim’s wife), Respondent 2 along with his son, Respondent 3 used to frequent the house of the victim regularly to demand repayment of the loan with interest. They would also threaten the entire family and would tell the victim that he would be sent to prison or kidnapped if the loan amount was not repaid.
The petitioner submitted that on the date of the incident, Respondent 2 had telephonically demanded the money from the victim and had threatened him. After receiving the call, the victim had told the petitioner that Respondent 2 had asked him to return the money on the same day or to commit suicide. Allegedly, the victim had 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 and upon return had found the victim hanging from the ceiling fan.
The petitioner further averred that the note recovered from the victim had mentioned that he was committing suicide due to harassment by Respondent 2. The note mentioned that Respondent 2 was making demands for repayment after adding interest at the rate of 10 per cent which had increased the payment amount up to Rs. 25 lakhs.
Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court had observed that a prima facie case had been made out against Respondents 2 and 3 for offence under Sections 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, the Trial Court had held that a mere demand of return of loaned amount cannot be construed as abetment to suicide and thus, had discharged Respondents 2 and 3 for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition came to be filed.
Analysis, Law and Decision
At the outset, the Court reiterated that the offence under Section 306 of the IPC could only be attracted where the accused had actively indulged in instigating, conspiring or aiding in the commission of suicide. Mens rea rea of the accused to abet the commission of suicide is a sine qua non for attracting the provision of abetment.
Agreeing with the reasoning of the Trial Court, the Court noted that the instigation was alleged on harassment and pestering by Respondents 2 and 3. Harassment is alleged on account of exuberant rate of interest, threats of jail, visits to the home of deceased and constant calls by Respondent 2. In allegations, there is also mention of a remark made by Respondent 2 on one call, soon before the victim committed suicide, where he asked the victim to pay the dues or to commit suicide. The Court opined that such remark, even if taken at the highest, are words of casual nature employed in heat of the moment and alone do not reflect intention on part of the accused to incite the deceased into committing suicide. The remark only appears to be made in an attempt to pressure the deceased into making payment of the remaining dues.
With regards to the rate of interest, the Court observed that the accused were charging the same rate of interest from other borrowers. Arguendo, presuming that the accused were loan sharks who were involved in charging usurious rates of interest, at best, such conduct will only attract liability under relevant provisions governing money lending.
Merely pursuing the borrower by way of repeated calls, or making occasional house visits where harsh words are said in the moment, for repayment are also not sufficient to prima facie raise grave suspicion against the accused qua instigating suicide.
[Sunil v. Stat Govt of NCT Delhi, Crl. Rev. P. No. 591 of 2023, decided on 16-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Shailender Dahiya, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP, SI Inderjeet Yadav, J.P. Sengh, Deepak Kumar Mishra, Sidheesh Yadav, Prince Mishra, Divya Yadav, Advocates