Karnataka High Court rules loan repayment demand not abetment to suicide
Bengaluru: In a recent judgment, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that insisting an individual repay a borrowed loan does not constitute abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar clarified that mere harassment or demands for loan repayment, lacking the intent to drive the person to suicide, do not qualify as abetment.
The case in question involved the suicide of Raju, who was married to Kavita, with one child together. Raju had borrowed money from the appellant, who allegedly harassed him for repayment. On April 25, 2019, the appellant and her daughter visited Raju's house, and on that day, Raju took his own life. The appellant was later convicted under Section 306 of the IPC, leading to an appeal in the High Court.
The appellant argued that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish abetment, emphasizing that demanding loan repayment does not constitute encouragement for suicide. They maintained there was no intention on their part to drive Raju to suicide, suggesting his financial troubles might have contributed to his tragic decision.
The Karnataka High Court supported this argument, stating, "The appellant/accused has lent money to the deceased Raju. She was interested in getting back the said money. She had no intention of taking the life of the deceased Raju. Therefore, there is no clear mens rea on the part of the appellant/accused to abet the deceased to commit suicide."
The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the required burden under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, highlighting that the circumstances presented did not lead to a definite inference of guilt.
The court cited several legal precedents to emphasize that the intention to provoke suicide must be present for an abetment charge to be valid. It also highlighted that each case of suicide is unique and depends on various factors, and that a person's reaction to a situation can vary significantly.
“There is no evidence to show that the appellant/accused had intention to drive out the deceased Raju to commit suicide. Looking from any angle, the act of the appellant/accused harassing the deceased for repayment of money borrowed and threatening him to take his life does not amount to abetment,” the Bench stated.
As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal, overturned the appellant's conviction, and directed the refund of any fines previously paid.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
NIA court to complete framing of charges against 2010 hand-chopping case accused on May 15
Kochi (PTI): A special court here will complete proceedings for framing charges against the prime accused in the 2010 hand-chopping case involving professor T J Joseph, in which PFI activists were accused of attacking him at Muvattupuzha.
Ernakulam Special Court for NIA cases judge P K Mohandas, on April 30, heard the arguments of counsel for accused Savad and Shafeer C and decided to proceed with framing charges against the duo.
A group chopped off Thodupuzha Newman College professor Joseph's right hand in July 2010, accusing him of religious blasphemy in a question paper he had prepared.
The case, later taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), resulted in the conviction of 19 accused.
The first accused, Savad, who allegedly chopped off Joseph’s palm, was arrested in Berram in Mattannur, Kannur, in January 2024, where he had allegedly been hiding under the pseudonym Shajahan.
The NIA also arrested Shafeer, who allegedly arranged shelter and provided logistical support to Savad at Chakkad and Mattannur in Kannur since 2020.
On April 30, the court heard the counsel for the accused and the NIA prosecutor on framing charges against the duo.
"On going through the documents and evidence in the case and on hearing the counsel for the accused and the prosecutor, I am of the opinion that there are grounds for presuming that the first accused has committed offences punishable under provisions of the IPC, the Explosive Substances Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and that the second accused has committed offences punishable under the IPC and the UAPA, and there are materials for framing charges under these provisions against the accused," the court said.
The court directed that Savad be produced and Shafeer, who is on bail, appear before it on May 15 for recording their pleas as part of the charge-framing process.
After framing the charges, the court will schedule the trial in the case.
