The Supreme Court on Monday refused to restore a suicide abetment case filed following the death of Member of Parliament (MP) Mohan Delkar [Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra and ors.].A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria confirmed a Bombay High Court ruling that had quashed the first information report (FIR) against nine persons accused of driving the parliamentarian to take his own life. The accused included Praful Patel, Administrator of the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu and Lakshadweep..The Supreme Court underlined that harassment alone does not constitute abetment of suicide unless there is a proximate trigger between the actions of the accused and the suicide.The Bench made it clear that even if there is allegation of constant harassment over a long period to, 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. .Mohan Delkar, a seven-time MP from Dadra and Nagar Haveli who had contested as an independent candidate in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, was found dead inside a hotel room in Mumbai on February 22, 2021. A 14-page suicide note recovered from the room alleged that he had taken the step due to political pressure.The FIR registered at Marine Drive police station invoked offences under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 389 (putting person in fear of accusation of offence) of the Indian Penal Code.It alleged that Delkar faced harassment from the Union Territory administration, purportedly at the behest of Administrator Praful Patel. .The plea before the top court, on which judgment was passed today, was filed by Abhinav Delkar, son Mohan Delkar.Abhinav Delkar challenged the Bombay High Court order quashing the FIR against nine persons, including Praful Patel..While hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court had earlier expressed doubts on whether the material on record against the accused could make them liable for suicide abetment under Section 306. CJI Gavai had remarked that humiliation alone may not amount to instigation to commit suicide. The Bench had also observed that even if someone was told to “go and die,” and suicide followed within 48 hours, Section 306 may not be attracted..In its judgment today, the Bench stressed the requirement of intention. “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 Section 306,” the Bench ruled. Casual remarks or reprimands cannot by themselves amount to instigation, the Court cautioned. “We have already seen that even a rebuke to ‘go, kill yourself’; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide,” the judgment stated. Pertinently, the Court also said that there cannot be absolute reliance on suicide notes.“We cannot place any absolute reliance on the suicide note, to ferret out a case of abetment, allegations in which were not disclosed in the written complaint to the Hon’ble Speaker or the statements made before the Committee of Privileges.”In the present case, the Court said it "found the suicide note to be suspect and we are not convinced that there is any modicum of material in the case to find abetment of suicide.”Hence, it upheld the Bombay High Court decision to quash the case. .[Read Judgment]
