Delhi High Court: Every Case Of Suicide Not Result Of Abetment; Higher Proof Of Instigation Required If Deceased Had Psychatric Problems

The Delhi High Court has held that every case of suicide does not amount to abetment and a higher proof of instigation is required in cases where deceased suffered from psychiatric problems.

The Court was considering Applications for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR registered under Sections 306/34 IPC.

The single bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, "A person, who is emotionally or mentally vulnerable due to depression and other psychiatric problems, is a big factor to be considered in a case of abetment of suicide. In such cases, higher proof of instigation is required. Every case of suicide does not amount to abetment and therefore the Court has to see whether the conduct of the accused was such that a normal person, not merely a hyper sensitive one, would have been driven to suicide. The standard is what a reasonable person would do and not someone who is unusually sensitive and unstable."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Amit Chadha while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman.

Facts of the Case

Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the deceased had suicidal tendencies and was undergoing psychiatric treatment from various hospitals. It was submitted that he was diagnosed with psychiatric issues i.e depression, hypertension, schizophrenia and OCD and was on psychiatric treatment and medicines since 1998 till his death. It was further submitted that the deceased used to force his wife to have unnatural sex with him and sexually abused her repeatedly and even his sons are witnesses to it. It was also submitted that the behaviour of the deceased towards his family was cruel and abusive. It was argued that even though the deceased was under treatment for his psychiatric condition, his condition was worsening. The Counsel averred that the deceased was a chronic abusive person in nature and was in regular contact with number of prostitutes and was a habitual drunkard.

When he created ruckus on one occasion and the Petitioners called in Police, the deceased threatened them to commit suicide and implicate them by writing a suicide note. Noting that post this, the deceased did commit suicide by consuming Celphos tablets and it was the Petitioners who took him to the hospital for treatment and in the suicide note circulated by him, through WhatsApp, deceased named them for being responsible for his death and this was done with a view to falsely implicate the petitioners as a counter-blast to the FIR lodged against him.

Reasoning By Court
The Court at the outset noted that mere harassment may not be enough for abetment as there must be active instigation for mere quarrels or fights in a marriage or family, do not amount to abetment.
It noted that higher degree of proof is required to prove abetment in cases where the person is suffering from clinical mental issues.
"A person, who is emotionally or mentally vulnerable due to depression and other psychiatric problems, is a big factor to be considered in a case of abetment of suicide. In such cases, higher proof of instigation is required," the Court observed.

The Application was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Ansh Jindal vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2025: DHC:3036
Appearances:
Applicant- SeniorAdvocate Amit Chadha, Advocate Nishant Singh, Advocate Sounava Karmakar, Advocate Harjas Singh, Advocate Jyoti Bajaj, Advocate Saarthak Sethi
Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman,
Click here to read/ download Order