Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has refused to quash abetment charges against a landowner in a case of a farmer’s suicide in Gir Somnath district in 2014. According to the case details, a landless farmer, Ashwin Jagani, committed suicide by jumping into a well in Aug 2010. He left a suicide note, which stated that the owner of the land he had been tilling, was threatening him over a payment dispute. An FIR was registered against landowner Mansukh Babariya at Talala police station for abetment to suicide.Babariya approached the HC seeking the quashing of the FIR, stating that the dispute between him and the farmer was regarding a breach of contract. Jagani took Babariya’s agricultural land on a two-season cultivation contract for about eight months, paying Rs 2.2 lakh. The agreement provided for an initial payment of Rs 50,000, Rs 1 lakh after the first crop harvest, and the balance in Nov 2014 on Dev Diwali. In June, Babariya took the dispute to the police station, alleging that Jagani had failed to pay after the first harvest. A settlement was later reached at the police station, where Jagani paid Rs 1.5 lakh and agreed to pay the remaining amount before harvesting the soybean crop. In Aug, Jagani committed suicide. In the HC, Babariya argued that the dispute was purely contractual, that no direct instigation or harassment occurred after the settlement. Jagani’s widow and the state govt opposed the quashing plea, contending that the deceased, an illiterate farmer, was subjected to sustained pressure and intimidation. After the hearing, the HC noted that Babariya used police machinery in what was essentially a contractual dispute and that the suicide note contained specific allegations of threats. It held that the question of intention or mens rea could not be conclusively examined while investigation was still underway and before the charge sheet was filed.While rejecting the quashing petition and allowing the probe to go ahead, the court said, “Instigation is to be inferred from the attending facts and circumstances of each case, and it is not necessary that there must always be direct evidence establishing a clear and immediate nexus. There may be situations where the circumstances created by the accused are such that the victim is driven to a state of extreme frustration, rendering it difficult to continue with life.”
