In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur Circuit Bench decided to drop the charge of encouraging suicide against Girish Shantilal Shah. Here's what happened.
What Was the Case About?
Girish Shantilal Shah, a 61-year-old businessman, was accused of encouraging the suicide of Aatish Ravindra Giribuwa. Aatish worked as a site supervisor for Girish and had filed a complaint on June 7, 2019, saying he was threatened and attacked over a money dispute.
The Incident
- Money Dispute: Aatish claimed Girish blamed him for losing Rs. 60,000, which later increased to Rs. 1,00,000.
- Attack Claim: Aatish said that Girish hit him with a hockey stick and threatened his family.
- Tragic Outcome: Aatish drank pesticide because he was scared of being attacked again and was taken to the hospital by Girish and other employees. Sadly, Aatish died the next day.
Legal Proceedings
- Charges Filed: The police filed charges against Girish under sections for encouraging suicide, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and hiding evidence.
- Girish's Argument: Girish's lawyer, Mr. Sutar, argued there was no proof that Girish encouraged the suicide, saying that being scared alone doesn't mean someone was encouraged to take their own life.
Court's Consideration
- Judge's Observations: Judges M. S. Karnik and Ajit B. Kadethankar noted that just being scared of being attacked doesn't mean someone was encouraged to commit suicide. They stressed the need for clear actions or intentions to push someone towards suicide.
- Citing Past Cases: The court mentioned several Supreme Court cases, highlighting that encouragement requires a clear intention to provoke or push someone to take their own life.
The Verdict
- Dropping the Encouragement Charge: The court decided to drop the charge for encouraging suicide, saying that the complaint did not show any action by Girish that would push someone to commit suicide.
- Continuing with Other Charges: The trial for other charges, like assault, will continue separately.
Final Thoughts
This decision highlights the importance of telling the difference between fear and actual encouragement in legal situations. The court's decision shows careful thinking about what counts as encouragement under the law.
