Spread the love

Keywords: Telangana High Court, Suicide, Justices K Lakshman, K Sujana

For the appellant, attorney P Prabhakar Reddy was present. The State was represented by attorney TV Ramana Rao

The court ruled that remarks said in the heat of the moment during an argument cannot be interpreted as having been said with mens rea.

The Telangana High Court has concluded that merely saying “go and die” will not constitute the act of aiding suicide, while clearing a person in a 2009 case. The State of AP v. Jangam Ravinder

Speaking the words “go and die” does not qualify as “instigation” under Indian Penal Code Section 306 (abetment to suicide), according to a bench of Justices K Lakshman and K Sujana.

The Court stated that comments uttered in a dispute on the heat of the moment cannot be regarded to have been said with mens rea because the phrase “instigate” conveys exhortation to do something severe.

According to the ruling, just saying “go and die” does not violate Section 306 of the IPC.

In this case, the appellant was found guilty of violating Sections 417 (cheating), 306 (suicide attempt), and 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appeal was being heard by the court. He had received a life-in-jail verdict.

The victim, who belonged to the Scheduled Tribe tribe, allegedly consumed pesticide after the appellant declined to marry her, according to the prosecution.

The case was resolved when the appellant said he would marry the victim despite earlier allegations that he had attempted to rape her.

The appellant allegedly encouraged the victim to “go and die” by telling her to do so, according to the High Court, without taking into account all of the relevant evidence.

It was also observed that the accused and victim had “sexual intimacy” two months prior to the victim’s passing. 

The Bench further ruled that the victim’s suicide could not have been caused by the accused’s reluctance to wed her because, as her mother revealed during cross-examination, the victim had already consented to wed someone else.

Written by Pallavi Sethi, an intern under Legal Vidhiya


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *