MP; Demanding Repayment of Loan Doesn’t Amount to Abetting Suicide: MP High Court
The bench allowed the revision petition and impugned the order framing charges under section 306 of IPC
Bhopal: In a significant verdict, the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court has held that demanding repayment of the loan by the lender does not amount to abetment of suicide of the borrower, if the latter ends life.
Delivering the judgement in the case, the single-bench of Justice Puspendra Yadav observed, “It is clear that the offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the persons who abet. A demand for return of money cannot by itself be construed as an act to be done with intention to instigate or provoke the commission of suicide, as a mere demand of money does not ordinarily drive a person to take such an extreme step”.
The bench further noted that ‘On the contrary, if a person commits suicide, the very purpose of seeking refund of money would stand frustrated, since in such an event, the money cannot be recovered at all. Therefore, the act of the petitioner i.e. demanding the money back or keeping the motorcycle of the deceased with him cannot be said as an overt act in the nature which led the victim/ deceased with no option, but to commit suicide”.
As per the case diary, on September 13, 2022, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself.
The kin of the deceased claimed that the deceased borrowed Rs one lakh from the petitioner, who demanded repayment of loan. The borrower ended his life by hanging himself when the lender kept his motorcycle in lieu of the debt.
The trial court had earlier held the petitioner guilty under section 306 (abetment of suicide) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petitioner moved the high court challenging the lower court’s verdict.
The bench noted that Section 107 of IPC which defines abetment makes it obligatory for the prosecution to establish instigation by the accused to leave the victim without any option but to commit suicide.
“If the facts of the present case are considered, the only allegation against the petitioner that he was demanding money back from the deceased and he kept the motorcycle with him”, the bench said and added that there was no material to establish that the petitioner had forced the deceased to take the extreme step.
The bench allowed the revision petition and impugned the order framing charges under section 306 of IPC.
