Mere refusal to repay borrowed money can’t be termed as abetment to suicide: HC

By
Daily Excelsior
-

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 31: High Court has observed that mere refusal to repay borrowed money cannot be termed as abetment to suicide.
The High Court stated this while quashing the charge-sheet filed in case titled “Jammu & Kashmir (now) UT Vs Gauri Devi” arising out of FIR No.152/2010 dated 14.08.2010 registered with Police Station Nowabad for offences under Section 306 of the RPC, pending before the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and also the order dated 12.03.2011, by virtue of which the charge for commission of offence under Section 306 has been framed against the petitioner.
On 07.12.2009 Police Post, Canal Road, received information from some reliable sources that Ghan Shyam, son of Ajay Kumar of Krishna Nagar has seriously injured himself by stabbing in the chest and was taken to GMC, Jammu where he died.
Since the matter pertained to the death of a human and cause was unknown so the police started inquest proceedings under Section 174 CrPC. During investigation it came to the fore that deceased had allegedly given Rs 73,000 as loan to his mother-in-law for the sake of her business and was himself indebted to many people as he had also borrowed money from them for his business. The deceased used to be harassed by his lenders to clear his debts. Due to this reason, he stabbed himself.
After hearing Advocate Basit M Keng for the petitioner whereas AAG Aseem Sawhney for the police, Justice Rajneesh Oswal observed, “the allegation against the petitioner is that she refused to return the money to the deceased as a result of which he committed suicide. Though the different persons may react or respond to a particular situation differently but this court is of the considered opinion that mere refusal to repay the loan cannot in any way can be considered to be an act of abetment to drive the deceased to commit suicide”.
“The ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the RPC are absolutely lacking in the instant case and the trial Court has not considered this vital aspect of the case and as such the order impugned is set aside. The petitioner is discharged for commission of offences under Section 306 RPC and the challan stands dismissed”, High Court said.

WhatsApp Icon Follow our WhatsApp channel