In a recent judgment, a bench of the Karnataka High Court refused to quash a criminal case (abetment to suicide) against three senior executives of a private firm over the death of a Dalit worker (a 35-year-old visual merchandising executive) belonging to the LGBT community in Bengaluru.
It said: “The deceased, in the case at hand, is the one belonging to LGBT community. The sensitivity of them being ostracized pervades in their psyche. Therefore, such people must be treated with all love and affection and not point at the infirmity that they have no control of. If every citizen would treat such citizens with all love and care, as is done to a normal human, precious lives would not be lost. Unfortunately, the precious life of a youth is lost in the case at hand, all for the prima facie allegations of pointing at sexual orientation of the deceased. Therefore, it is for every citizen to bear this in mind while interacting with sensitive people. It is necessary that every one of us introspect on this issue, after all, everyone of them are human beings and all are worthy of equality.”
The three executives were in senior positions in the company—deputy GM Marketing, VP in Human Resources and assistant manager, marketing. The deceased joined the company and worked there between 2014 and 2016, following which he worked in other organisations. Later, he came back to the same company in 2022, where he was offered the position of Manager, Visual Merchandising. He accepted the post and was to report to the Dy GM.
In February 2023, the deceased raised concerns with the Human Resource Department (HRD) regarding the functioning of the Dy GM, who, he alleged, was demanding and asking him to micromanage the work and it was affecting his efficiency. It was further alleged that he spoke to him in a raised voice at every meeting and cracked unsavory jokes at him. All the team members are said to have teased the deceased on his sexual orientation. The HRD held discussions with the Dy GM and some suggestions were made to the deceased as well.
On February 28, 2023, the deceased submitted his resignation, which was accepted on March 16 and notified by e-mail to the deceased. Meanwhile, the deceased complained to the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, contending that he was harassed by the petitioners. The Dy GM was issued a show cause notice.
However, the resignation was withdrawn by him as he sought to re-enter the company. On his re-entry, the HRD initiated an internal process to give him a position in a team based out of Delhi. The deceased participated in that interview and sought any position other than what was proposed. A subsequent interview was held, but the deceased declined to attend it online. Therefore, his employment remained in limbo. He also registered a complaint against the three executives for offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and on the basis of that, they were summoned to the police station where they narrated all that had taken place. The deceased also approached the Assistant Commissioner of Police complaining that he was harassed by the three executives. They were again summoned, but no crime was registered this time. The deceased then committed suicide on June 3, 2023. Following this, the father of the deceased registered a complaint under Section 306 of the IPC.
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the deceased was being treated inappropriately as he belonged to the LGBT community and was repeatedly questioned about his sexuality. The Court held that it was not a case where there was no prima facie material or the allegations were made in thin air. Cases which involve the death of a person and where the accused is guilty of abetment to suicide will have to be considered owing to the facts of each case.
The Court said that if the accused by their alleged acts played an active role in tarnishing or destroying the self esteem of a hypersensitive person or even their self respect, they would definitely be guilty of commission of abetment to suicide; if the accused have kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds, provoking them and driving them to the wall, this too would be abetment.
Other judgments in various courts too have taken a similar view. The apex court in Mahendra KC vs State of Karnataka (2022) recognised that a person who is depressed and suffering from mental health issues could be hypersensitive. Every individual is different and a different individual personality would manifest itself in a variation in their behaviour. It held that quashing of the proceedings at the stage of the crime was not a course of action that can be undertaken while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.
In March this year, the Allahabad High Court while noting that the alleged act of abusing the victim took place inside a car, and not in public view, quashed an order of the subordinate court, which had issued summons to an accused for facing trial under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Further, the High Court of Orissa had set aside charges leveled under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against two persons accused of insulting a Scheduled Caste person. The single-judge bench of Justice RK Pattanaik observed that if a person was abused with the name of his caste or the caste was uttered suddenly in the course of events, it would not by itself attract an offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, unless the intention to insult him because he was an SC/ST person was prima facie established. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court order in Hitesh Verma vs State of Uttarakhand and another case where the apex court held that an offence under the SC/ST Act would not be established without there being any intention to humiliate the victim on account of his caste.
—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau