Blackmailing by jilted lover can be abetment to suicide: Bombay HC

Mumbai, May 02: A threat by a jilted lover to ‘destroy’ a girl’s life, which leads to the girl committing suicide is a clear case of ‘abetment to suicide’, the Bombay high court has held.

Devesh Datta Pathrikar had filed a petition seeking discharge from the case of abetment of suicide against himself and his parents.

According to the police case, one Sangeeta (name changed) committed suicide on December 30, 2005, allegedly because Devesh was blackmailing her.

Sangeeta and Devesh’s parents knew each other and for a while Sangeeta responded to Devesh’s romantic overtures. However, later she changed her mind and refused to marry him.

Devesh’s parents tried to mediate, but Sangeeta flatly stated that she did not want to marry him. After this, Devesh allegedly threatened to “destroy her life”.

He also said that he would publish his and Sangeeta’s photographs to ruin her prospects of marriage. Sangeeta committed suicide, blaming Devesh in her suicide note. Therefore, the police booked him and his parents for abetment of suicide in 2006.

Devesh then filed a petition in the high court, challenging the charges framed against him and his parents. His lawyer argued that Devesh had no intention to make the girl end her life.

However, rejecting his plea, Justice AV Nirgude of Aurangabad bench of the high court held that Devesh certainly intended to “show these photographs to the grooms who would consider Sangeeta’s proposal for marriage. The existence of these photographs had a terrible effect on Sangeeta.”

Mentioning that the girl was from a conservative background, the judge noted that “she felt trapped and chose to end her life”. This attempt to blackmail her through photographs would amount to “abetment of suicide” as defined in the Indian Penal Code, the high court held.

“Prima facie, it is seen that the petitioner’s (Devesh’s) intention was to finish Sangeeta as a person”, the court observed.

While allowing Devesh’s trial to proceed, the court held that his parents had committed no offence, and should be discharged.

–Agencies–