Crime News Desk !!! Giving anticipatory bail to two persons in a case of abetment to suicide, the Delhi High Court has said that if a person ends his life due to “failure in love”, his female partner cannot be held responsible for suicide. The court said that no other person can be convicted for the wrong decision taken by a person with ‘weak and weak minds’. Justice Amit Mahajan said, “If a lover commits suicide due to failure in love, if a student commits suicide due to poor performance in the examination, if a customer commit suicide due to his case being dismissed, respectively, respectively: Girlfriend, examiner and lawyer cannot be held responsible for provoking suicide.”
Failure and suicide in love
The court passed an order to grant anticipatory bail to a woman and her friend. In the year 2023, a case of abetment of suicide was registered against both of them. According to the complaint of the deceased’s father, the woman and her son were in a romantic relationship and the other accused was the common friend of both of them. It was alleged that the petitioners instigated the deceased saying that the two accused had physical relations and would soon marry. The body of the deceased was found by his mother in his room. A ‘suicide note’ was also found in the room, in which the deceased wrote that he is committing suicide due to both of them (women and her common friends).
Court gave an important verdict
The High Court admitted that it was true that the deceased had mentioned the names of the petitioners in its ‘suicide note’, but the opinion of the court was that there was nothing in that ‘note’ that would reveal that the accused said that the words said by the accused were so dangerous that to force a ‘normal person’ to commit suicide. The court said that the ‘WhatsApp chat’ placed in the record appears prima facie that the deceased was of sensitive nature and whenever the woman refused to talk to her, she constantly threatened the woman to commit suicide. Giving anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the court said that the objective of interrogation in custody is to assist in the investigation and is not punitive. The court said that there is no need to interrogate both the petitioners in custody. The court directed the petitioners to join and cooperate in the investigation.
