The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea by West Bengal Police challenging a Calcutta High Court’s verdict discharging an accused in an alleged abetment of suicide case by holding that terming the woman a “call girl” cannot be interpreted to be an act of instigating.
A bench of justices Indu Malhotra and R Subhash Reddy said there was no merit in the appeal filed by the state requiring any interference in the “well reasoned judgement” of the high court.
The high court had in July 2009 discharged the accused of the charges framed against them under section 306 (abetment of suicide) read with section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the case.
According to the prosecution, the girl had committed suicide after the parents of the man, with whom she had developed intimacy and wanted to marry, had addressed her as a “call girl”.
It was alleged that the man was appointed as a teacher of the girl, who was a painter and artist, and they had developed intimacy during the course of coaching.
The police had alleged that the girl went to the house of the man where his parents addressed her as a “call girl” after which she became mentally perturbed and committed suicide in March 2004.
{{/usCountry}}The police had alleged that the girl went to the house of the man where his parents addressed her as a “call girl” after which she became mentally perturbed and committed suicide in March 2004.
{{/usCountry}}Later, on the complaint of parents of the girl, an FIR was lodged in the matter.
According to the police, there were two suicide notes of the victim in which she had stated that she was stigmatised as parents of the man had addressed her as a “call girl”.
When the charge sheet was filed in the case, the accused had filed an application for discharge but it was rejected by the trial court.
Later, when they moved the high court challenging the charges framed against them, the high court discharged them “by recording a finding that terming the deceased as a call girl, there was no utterance which can be interpreted to be an act of instigating, goading or solicitation or insinuation, the deceased to commit suicide”.
In its verdict, the apex court noted that after considering the materials placed on record, “We are also of the view that the present case does not present any picture of abetment allegedly committed by respondents (accused).” “The suicide committed by the victim cannot be said to be the result of any action on part of respondents nor can it be said that commission of suicide by the victim was the only course open to her due to action of the respondents. There was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide,” it said.