Court: Abuse for loan repayment is abetment to suicide
|
Swati Deshpande
|
|
Mumbai:
|
Continuously
beating a family man in his family's presence at his home and at the
workplace, and demanding documents of his house certainly amounts to
instigation and provocation to commit suicide, the Bombay high court
held while refusing to drop a case of abetment to suicide against two
moneylenders.
Gurunath Gawli and Sangita Gawli had moved the HC with a
revision plea against an order passed last year by a sessions judge,
who refused to discharge them from a 2014 case of abetment under the
Indian Penal Code and offences under the Bombay Moneylenders' Act.
Umesh Bombley's widow had accused the Gawlis of harassing him to return a loan of `19 lakh. They used to regularly abuse, intimidate and beat him, an FIR lodged with the Mulund police stated.
“A prudent family man, when meted with such treatment day in and day out, would certainly think of committing suicide,“ Justice A M Badar said, rejecting the plea of the duo.
The HC relied on a Supreme Court ruling which held that at the pre-trial stage, suspicion was enough to frame the charge, and marshalling of evidence was not required. It also relied on the conduct of the accused prior to the suicide to show that the suspicion pointed towards them provoking and facilitating him to commit suicide.
“The accused persons' conduct in assaulting the deceased for getting back the loan amount appears to be wilful and its gravity seems to propel or compel a person of ordinary prudence to commit suicide,“ the HC said.
Bomble, who committed suicide at his home in September 2014, used to sell cutlery on a Mumbai footpath.“He was not well-educated,“ the court observed, and said, “Intention and a guilty mind are pre-requisite of offence of abetment. There should be a reasonable nexus between the suicide and abetment by the accused.“
The court noted that “intention is a mental state of mind and no tangible evidence can be produced by the prosecution to establish intention. Therefore, intention of accused persons is required to be gathered from all surrounding circumstances by applying test of a prudent person“.
Umesh Bombley's widow had accused the Gawlis of harassing him to return a loan of `19 lakh. They used to regularly abuse, intimidate and beat him, an FIR lodged with the Mulund police stated.
“A prudent family man, when meted with such treatment day in and day out, would certainly think of committing suicide,“ Justice A M Badar said, rejecting the plea of the duo.
The HC relied on a Supreme Court ruling which held that at the pre-trial stage, suspicion was enough to frame the charge, and marshalling of evidence was not required. It also relied on the conduct of the accused prior to the suicide to show that the suspicion pointed towards them provoking and facilitating him to commit suicide.
“The accused persons' conduct in assaulting the deceased for getting back the loan amount appears to be wilful and its gravity seems to propel or compel a person of ordinary prudence to commit suicide,“ the HC said.
Bomble, who committed suicide at his home in September 2014, used to sell cutlery on a Mumbai footpath.“He was not well-educated,“ the court observed, and said, “Intention and a guilty mind are pre-requisite of offence of abetment. There should be a reasonable nexus between the suicide and abetment by the accused.“
The court noted that “intention is a mental state of mind and no tangible evidence can be produced by the prosecution to establish intention. Therefore, intention of accused persons is required to be gathered from all surrounding circumstances by applying test of a prudent person“.
No comments:
Post a Comment