The Karnataka High Court recently declined to dismiss the abetment of suicide case brought against three individuals accused of subjecting their colleague to harassment based on his sexual orientation.
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the deceased was a member of the LGBT community, and the vulnerability stemming from potential ostracism is deeply ingrained in their mindset.
“Consequently, such individuals should be treated with affection and empathy, rather than highlighting their inherent condition that they cannot control. If society embraced such individuals with the same compassion and consideration as any other human being, valuable lives would not be lost,” the single bench asserted.
The Court further emphasized that such cases must be evaluated based on their specific circumstances.
“Cases involving a person’s death where the accused are implicated in abetment to suicide must be evaluated according to the unique aspects of each case. There is no fixed parameter, standard, or formula for interference, particularly in cases related to abetment to suicide,” the order stated.
Tragically, the life of a young person was lost in this instance due to the alleged actions of pointing out the deceased’s sexual orientation, the Court observed.
“As a result, every individual must bear this in mind while interacting with those who are sensitive. It is imperative for all of us to contemplate this matter because, ultimately, all individuals are human beings deserving of equal treatment,” the single-judge stated.
The deceased individual took his own life on June 3, 2023.
The following day, his father filed a police report. As soon as the police initiated an investigation, the accused parties challenged the complaint in court. Significantly, the deceased had previously lodged a complaint with the Internal Complaints Committee established under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act of 2013, alleging mistreatment by the accused individuals. He had also resigned from his job at the company, citing harassment from the accused.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the deceased person had voiced several grievances, including comments about his sexual orientation. Furthermore, it was contended that they had no close connection to the death nor had they incited it, which is required for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The prosecution contended that, at a minimum, the case warranted an investigation due to the loss of life, and the proximity or lack thereof would only become evident after the investigation. The bench noted that the present plea was filed a mere three days after the FIR was lodged, and the investigation was ongoing. It is not a scenario where there is no prima facie evidence or the allegations are unsubstantiated, the Court added.
The bench opined that the human mind can be influenced, resulting in diverse reactions, including suicide. Therefore, these factors fall within the domain of disputed questions of fact that necessitate investigation, at the very least.
The Court referred to the case of Mahendra KC v State of Karnataka, in which the Supreme Court underscored the uniqueness of each person and the resultant variations in behavior. Accordingly, the Court rejected the plea.
