Keywords: quash, abetment, suicide, harassing, sexual orientation
The abetment of suicide case filed against three people accused of tormenting their coworker because of his sexual orientation was recently denied by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Malathy SB and Others v. State
The dead is a member of the LGBT community, and the sensitivity of them being shunned permeates their mentality, according to single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna.
“Therefore, such people must be treated with all love and affection and not point at the infirmity that they have no control of. If every citizen would treat such citizens with all love and care, as is done to a normal human, precious lives would not be lost,” the Court said.
It further stated that these scenarios would need to be taken into account based on the specific facts and circumstances.
“Cases which involve death of a person and the accused are guilty of abetment to suicide of the said victim will have to be considered owing to the facts of each case. There cannot be any particular parameter; yardstick; or a theorem for interference, particularly, in cases of abetment to suicide,” the order stated.
The Court noted that, regrettably, the precious life of a young person was lost in the current instance due to claims that, at first glance, appear to refer to the deceased’s sexual orientation.
“Therefore, it is for every citizen to bear this in mind while interacting with sensitive people. It is necessary that every one of us introspect on this issue, after all, everyone of them are human beings and all are worthy of equality,” the single-judge said.
The dead committed suicide on June 3, 2023. His father made a police report the following day. The accused individuals went to court to contest the complaint as soon as the police began their investigation.
It should be noted that the deceased had previously complained to the Internal Complaints Committee established by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act of 2013 that the accused parties in the case were mistreating him. In addition, he had left the company, alleging the accused’s harassment of him.
The petitioner’s attorney claimed at the hearing that the dead person had expressed a number of grievances, one of which was in reference to remarks made about his sexual orientation.
Furthermore, it was argued that neither they nor anybody else was directly involved in the death, which is necessary for the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The prosecution said that, at the very least, an inquiry was required because there had been a fatality, and that it would only be clear whether or not there had been a proximity after the investigation.
The bench noted that the inquiry was still underway even though the current plea was only submitted three days after the FIR was lodged. The Court said, “This is not a case where there is no prima facie evidence or where the allegations are made out of thin air.”
“If the accused by their alleged acts have played an active role in tarnishing or destroying the self esteem of a hypersensitive person or even their self respect, would definitely become guilty of commission of abetment to suicide; if the accused have kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds, provoking them and driving them to the wall, would also become circumstances that would be ingredients of abetment, all prima facie.”
The Court stated that each case will need to be examined individually due to the delicate study of human behaviour that surrounds it.
According to the Court, a person’s life could end as a result of being impacted or reacting in a variety of ways. All of them would therefore fall under the category of contested questions of fact and would, at the very least, require investigation, it said.
The Supreme Court had emphasised that each person is unique, leading to variances in behaviour, in the case Mahendra KC v. State of Karnataka, on which the Court drew its authority.
Therefore, the plea was denied by the court.
The petitioners were represented by senior advocate Sandesh J. Chouta and advocate Mrinal Shankar.
State was represented by attorney KP Yashodha.
Written By: Sakshi Sinha, College: KIIT School of Law, Semester: 6th an intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments