‘Proving suicide abetment tough’, Inspector gets relief

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said: “At any rate, the charge of abetting suicide is something difficult to establish while the conduct of cruelty may be established in certain cases, particularly under section 498 of the penal code. In suicide, a charge of abetment can be established only if the acts of a person drive the victim to the most injudicious act to end his or her life.” 

“The charge was of a police officer using abusive language against the victim, the nature of which is not indicated. Also, what is abusive differs according to one’s perception. Merely because one is abused he/she may not entail committing suicide. The charge sheet does not indicate any previous insult,” the bench held.

In the present case, the Inspector had taken one Sethu into custody for an offence in 2009. Following this, his sister Ponnammal visited the station and upset over the reported verbal abuse by the inspector, returned home and immolated self. She also stated the same in her dying declaration. However, the inspector established through the prosecution witness that he was not in the station on the said day.

The bench, noting that the order of the single judge cannot be touched, held that the State, unable to establish that the inspector was indeed at the police station on the said day, instead accepted the uncorroborated version of evidence given to DRO as sacrosanct before passing the disciplinary order.