Mumbai: The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviour in human beings are complex and multifaceted, the Bombay High Court has said.
The court made the observation while quashing an FIR against cosmetologist in connection with the suicide of Delhi-based actress in 2015, ruling that the allegations did not establish a direct link between his actions and her death.
A bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Shyam Chandak noted that different individuals react and behave differently, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide.
“Each individual’s suicide pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and an exacerbating contributor to an individual’s vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self protection or an escapism from intolerable self,” the bench said.
In cosmetologist’s case, the HC held that there was no evidence of instigation — an essential ingredient for an abetment charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While noting that the actress was under mental and financial stress, the court stated that the accusations against the cosmetologist failed to meet the legal criteria for abetment.
A 40-year-old television actress, had undergone breast implant surgery at cosmetologist’s Mumbai clinic in 2005-06. In 2011, she filed a police complaint accusing him of inappropriate behavior during a check-up, leading to an FIR for outraging her modesty.
In 2015, while attending court proceedings in the case, the actress was staying at a friend’s place in Mumbai. She was reportedly struggling financially and facing emotional distress. On May 16, 2015, she called her mother at 3 am, claiming that she had been forced to consume alcohol the previous night by two men and her friend, however, she claimed to be fine and assured that she would return the following day. Later that day, she allegedly died by suicide by slitting her throat at the friend’s residence.
Over a year later, in October 2016, the actor’s brother filed an FIR against the cosmetologist, alleging that his harassment had driven her to suicide. The cosmetologist, in turn, moved the High Court seeking to quash the case.
His lawyer, Advocate Aniket Nikam, contended that even if all allegations in the FIR were accepted as true, they did not amount to abetment of suicide. There is no material to show that the petitioner instigated or prompted the actor to die by suicide, he argued, also highlighting the unexplained one-year delay in filing the FIR.
The state’s counsel, Advocate Gaikwad, countered that the cosmetologist had exploited the actor during her period of financial and emotional distress, pushing her into an unbearable situation.
However, the court found no direct link between cosmetologist’s actions and actor’s suicide. “Even if the entire allegations in the FIR are accepted as they are, the acts attributed to the petitioner do not show any intent to instigate actor to commit suicide,” the bench observed. Calling the FIR an “abuse of the process of law,” the court quashed the case.
