Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that if a man takes his life because of a failed relationship, his girlfriend cannot be charged with abetting his suicide.

Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, in a single-judge ruling, emphasized that if a student takes their own life due to academic underperformance or a litigant does so because their case was dismissed, the respective teacher or lawyer cannot be held accountable for the suicides.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the charges of abetting suicide against a 24-year-old woman and her two brothers, who were previously accused in connection with the suicide of the woman's former partner.

According to the prosecution's account, the deceased took his own life at his residence on January 23, 2023, leaving a suicide note that implicated the woman in question and her brothers as the reasons for his actions.

In a detailed two-page suicide note, the man stated that he had been in a romantic relationship with the woman for approximately 8 years. He lamented that she ended their relationship and married someone else. Additionally, he accused her brothers of intimidating him, preventing him from maintaining ties with their sister, and cited these reasons for his drastic decision to end his life.

Following a complaint filed by the deceased uncle, the Rajnandgaon Police took action and arrested the three individuals. Subsequently, on October 13, 2023, the District Court pressed charges against them under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The trio filed a petition with the High Court, challenging the decision of the trial court to frame charges against them. The prosecution's case leaned on testimonies from the man's friends, family, and relatives. These statements highlighted alleged threats made by the woman's brothers towards the deceased. Additionally, they claimed that the woman had borrowed money from the deceased but failed to repay it, subsequently ending the relationship.

Justice Sahu observed that there was a lack of substantial evidence on record to support the prosecution of the woman and the others. The bench referred to the statements provided by the prosecution witnesses, emphasizing that the man himself had expressed his intention to take his own life. His reasons were cited as 'betrayal in love, threats of severe repercussions, and the fear of being falsely accused in a case.'

The Court concluded that the oral testimony provided by witnesses amounted to "hearsay," lacking the necessary substance to warrant charging the applicants with abetment of suicide. Additionally, concerning the suicide note, the Court remarked that the nature of the threats described within it did not seem to be of a severity that would typically propel a 'normal person' toward considering suicide.

The Court emphasized that the suicide letter primarily conveyed the deceased's emotional distress caused by the woman's betrayal in love. However, the contents of the letter did not suggest any intention on the part of the accused individuals to drive the deceased towards committing suicide.

"In simple words, there is nothing in suicide letter to even suggest that the applicants have made such an atmosphere around the deceased that there was no option left for him but to commit suicide," the Court held. 

Based on these findings, the Court dismissed the charges against the three accused individuals, absolving them from further involvement in the case.

Accused Represented by Advocate Nitesh Jain; State Counselled by Advocate GI Sharan in Landmark Suicide Abetment Case