Abhinav Mohan Delkar VS State of Maharashtra
(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.482— Quashing of FIR – Prima facie case – Abetment of suicide – Allegations that a seven-time Member of Parliament had committed suicide, leaving behind a suicide note naming persons, both in administration and police – A person unable to bear pressure or withstand a humiliation or unable to oppose, may end his own life in desperation – Same does not necessarily imply that alleged perpetrator had an intention to lead victim to commit suicide – Charge of extortion was first stated in suicide note but was not disclosed in any of the complaints made to Speaker or Committee of Privileges – Before the Committee of Privileges, allegations in the suicide note, against named officers, were not referred to – Nothing was produced on record to show that suicide note was recovered along with body – No verification of handwriting in suicide note was carried out – Serious doubt was raised regarding suicide note, considering statements recorded in proceedings of Committee of Privileges and manner in which note was introduced – Subsequent conduct of police regarding delay in registering crime and casual statements made in FIR, negated contention that allegations levelled were direct cause of death – High Court had rightly concluded that no case was made out from First Information Statement and quashed FIR.
Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.306, S.107— Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (45 of 2023) , S.108, S.45— AIR 1992 SC 604-Relied on(Paras2930313236373940)
(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.306— Abetment of suicide – Mens rea – Merely because victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment.
Even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of S. 306 read with S. 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end.The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under S. 306. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under S. 306.
