Karnataka High Court calls person committing suicide a ‘Weakling’! Do not diminish the gravity of mental health issues, says Apex Court.
Case Analysis By:
Vaishnavi
Research Intern, Legal WIND
Citation: 2021 SCC online SC 1021[Criminal Appeal No. 1239 of 2021]
Date of Judgement: October 29, 2021
Division Bench: Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud and Justice BV Nagarathna
Court: Supreme Court of India
Introduction:
Karnataka High Court has termed the person who committing suicide a ‘weakling’. Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna opined that, “The mental health of a person cannot be compressed into a one size fits all approach” while setting the order of Karnataka high court which quashed criminal proceedings against a government official in a case of abetment of suicide. Further it added that there is no material to corroborate the allegations made in the suicide note is mistaken.
Facts:
On December 6, 2016 an FIR was registered at Maddur police station at 20:00 hours by Mahendra KC, brother of deceased under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Special Land Acquisition Officer for Bengaluru city and another driver of his car.
Deceased, who was working as driver of government officer (Special Land Acquisition Officer), who used to travel from Bengaluru once in a month to visit the family where deceased used to drive for him, was found dead on 6th December 2016, suicide note was found next to him which was running twelve pages and the same was uploaded on his Facebook account by him. His suicide note establishes that, accused accumulated wealth of approximately hundred crores which is illegally gotten and converted black into white and transferred the funds to relatives. The complaint asserted that the accused had threatened the deceased and harassed him which resulted in mental stress and pushed the deceased to death by poison consumption. The second respondent and his driver were named and held responsible for the suicide.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) was in arrested on 11 December 2016 with reference to the complaint made by BT Suresh (deceased friend), an FIR was registered on 12th December 2016 under the sections 323, 324, 341, 342, 363, 506, 144 read with section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On April 18, 2017 the SLAO instituted a petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR registered against him.
The bench of single judge of Karnataka High Court on 29 May 2020 quashed the proceedings relating to the complaint and the FIR on the ground that the prolongation of the prosecution would be a “travesty of justice and be a sheer waste of time, besides requiring the accused-respondent to undergo the rigors of a lengthy trial”. Resentful, the State of Karnataka and the complainant (brother of deceased) had approached the hon’ble supreme court of India.
Key contentions/Issue raised:
High court while exercising power under section 482 CrPC[1] to quash FIR against SLAO should have interrogated mentioned questions:
1. Whether the allegation made in the complaint, prima facie constitutes an offence?
2. Whether the allegations are so improbable that a cautious man would not arrive at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint?
Arguments:
1. Arguments presented by the appellant:
According to Advocate Mahesh Thakur the matter was at the phase of investigation and the officer was on bail, the single judge bench had quashed the FIR as a result the entire investigation was stopped midway. The counsel further mentioned that the high court had completely failed to recognize the seriousness and gravity of the allegations made against the accused.
To substantiate contention counsel also argued that besides the suicide note, the deceased had informed both the complainant and other witnesses of the harassment which had a position of influence and with whom the deceased worked as a driver.
2. Arguments presented by the respondent:
Bench of singe judge of Karnataka high court held that, accused did not deprived him from wealth or threatened the deceased. If the deceased genuinely felt imperial he would have straight away appeared to police station.
High court observed that the deceased took significant time to pen down twelve pages, “it would have been but natural for the author to set out the details”. And made withstanding remark on the suicide note itself, degrading the importance of mental health.
Advocate V N Raghupathy appearing for the state submitted that the investigation was stopped since the suicide note was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis but the high court while addressing the proceedings under section 482 restrained the proceedings. They are of opinion that allegation in the complaint and in suicide note fell short of the ingredients to establish a case of abetment and hence the essential requirements of the offence under section 306 had not been addressed and established.
Judgement:
The judgement held that this is not the of case the deceased (driver) that the accused had deprived him of his property or exhausted his hopes towards life or departed from kith and kins. There is no trace of the prosecution that the deceased was escaping from petitioner or his subordinate. If deceased has firmly felt threatened, he would have lodged complaint. It is not that deceased was weakling, he was driver by profession and accidents and life goes hand in hand.
By observing his activity like attending a relative’s functions and interacting an indication of behavior of a normal person and not person undergoing harsh treatment. The contention that this criminal case would jeopardize his career progression also cannot be brushed aside. The bench concluded by describing the manner in which a depressed person ought to have behaved deeply diminishes the gravity of mental health.
Precedent Mentioned (Case laws):
· State of Orissa v Saroj Kumar Sahoo[2]
· State of Haryana v Ch. Bhajan Lal[3]
· State of M P v Surendra Kori[4]
Case Analysis:
The apex court noticed that the High Court has exceeded limits of the power under section 482 CrPC and a criminal trial or an appeal against a conviction on a charge under section 306 of IPC.[5] Essentially, the work of high court was to determine whether the allegations made in FIR are taken at their face value, genuine and accepted in their entirely did or did not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused. The high court has taken it beyond its capacity and derived its own perspective of the allegations. Instead, was supposed to apply the settled principles.
The bench further added that, “Behavioral scientists have initiated the discourse on the heterogeneity of every individual and have challenged the traditional notion of ‘all humans behave alike’. Individual personality differences manifest as a variation in the behavior of people. Therefore, how an individual copes up with a threat both physical and emotional, expressing love, loss, sorrow and happiness, varies greatly in view of the multifaceted nature of the human mind and emotions. Thus, the observation describing the manner in which a depressed person ought to have behaved deeply diminishes the gravity of mental health issues”.
Furthermore, “The high court stalled the investigation by granting an interim order of stay. If the investigation had been taken forward then, there would have been disclosed of material facts which would helped into the trial, for the alleged offence against the second respondent”. In annexation, bench noticed that the Karnataka high court has failed to complete the investigation in the complaint pending on the file of the second additional civil judge (junior division) and JMFC court, Maddur, Mandya district. High court stalled the investigation by granting interim order of stay.
“The judgement is replete with hypothesis and surmises on the basis of which the single judge has reached an inference on facts. The single judge has tested the veracity of the allegations in criminal complaint and in the suicide note left behind of an evidentiary record which would be collected during the trial. At the stage when High court consider a petition for quashing under section 482 of the CrPC, the test to be applied is whether the allegations in the complaint as they stand, without adding or detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the high court test the veracity of the allegations nor for that matter can it proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of trail.”
Conclusion:
The suicide annotation includes the complete the involvement of accused in the events which led deceased to lose his life and what matters is the investigation and fair trial to serve the justice. According to the hon’ble supreme court, each and every individual go through or can say experience the depression of mental health differently, it is very uneven to term it as ‘weakling’ and the observation is legitimate to break the notion associated with mental health that, strong people aren’t depressed and they do not have mental health issues.
The Indian legal system is finally taking the initiative to spread the importance of mental health, last November Madras high court showcased lacuna of government spending on mental health infrastructure. It noted the 'need of the hour’ to have sufficient psychiatrists and departments at each level.
References/Bibliography:
1.Mahendra K C v State of Karnataka, 2021 Latest Caselaw 545SC: <https://www.latestlaws.com/amp/latest-caselaw/2021/october/2021-latest-caselaw-545-sc> (Accessed 10 November 2021)
2.Bhardwaj Prachi, “Karnataka HC calls person committing suicide a ‘weakling’! Don’t diminish the gravity of mental health issues, says SC” <https://www.scconline.com/post/2021/10/30/karnataka-high-court-calls-person-committing-suicide-a-weakling-dont-diminish-the-gravity-of-mental-health-issues-says-sc/?amp> (Accessed 10 November 2021)
3. Press Trust of India, “Mental health of person cannot be compressed into ‘one size fits’ all approach: SC”https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/law/story/mental-health-of-person-cannot-be-compressed-into-one-size-fits-all-approach-sc-1874060-2021-11-07 (Accessed 10 November 2021)
[1] Nothing shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of high court to make orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. [2] 2003 CRILJ 1872 [3] 1992 AIR 604 [4] WP No. 2431/2010 [5] If a person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Comments