II.

THAT THE ACCUSED HAS ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED

It is humbly submitted by the prosecution that the Allogrian head of speedogram, Rohit Sippy
(herein referred to as A-2), is guilty of the offence of abetment to suicide u/s 306 of Allogrian
Penal Code (herein referred to as APC) r/w sec. 84B of the Information Technology Act (herein
referred to as IT Act) in the present matter.

[2.1] The deceased has committed suicide because of the result of the speedogram pole

1. It is submitted that the deceased has committed suicide because of the instigation and
provocation made on the social platform, speedogram.
2. A person can be said to instigate another when he incites or otherwise encourages
another, directly or indirectly, to commit suicide.1 The word ‘instigate’ means to goad or
urge forward or provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing an act.2 Instigation is to goad,
urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage doing "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
"instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or
what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence.
3. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct,
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide, in which case, "instigation" may have to be inferred.
4. To constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or
encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or 'urging forward'. The
dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into act ion;
provoke to action or reaction, to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts.3 In
the present matter, speedogram acted as an intermediary platform to provoke the
deceased to commit suicide by publishing comments asking the deceased to die.
5. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by
persuasion to do anything. Thus abetment may be by inaligation, conspiracy or

1
Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. (2002) CriLJ 2233
2
Parimal Chatterji v. Emperor 140 Ind. Cas.787
3
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446; Kishangiri Mangalgiri
Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 : (2009) 1 SCR 672 : AIR 2009 SC 1808 : 2009 0 Cri.L.J 1720.
 intentional aid as provided in the three clauses of the section.4Instigate means the active
role played by a person with a view to stimulate another person to do the thing.
6. In the matter at hand, the deceased was addicted to social media and had 1 million
followers on Speedogram5. Further the fact sheet suggests that “Pooja was so addicted to
Speedogram through the Speedo poll, Pooja used to ask her fans, which housemate she
should eliminate during the upcoming eviction. Quiet often she would act in accordance
to the feedback received from her Speedo poll.”6
7. Thus it can be successfully concluded that the speedogram pole had immense impact on
the mind of the deceased which lead her to commit suicide.

[2.2] The accused acted as a intermediary and provoked the deceased to commit suicide

1. In Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Visaka Industries Limited7 the term ‘intermediary’ was
defined. It stated that intermediary is the medium of contact between the two parties. In
the cases of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Precious Finance Investment Pvt.
Ltd.,8 Chander Kanta bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand,9Avinash Bajaj v. State, Religious
Technology Centre v. Netcom,10 State of Rajasthan v. Leela Jain,11 Sales Tax Officer,
Circle I, Jabalpur v. Hanuman Prasad12, Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf13, Viacom
International Inc. v. Youtube Inc14. and Barnhart v. Sigmon Co.15, it was reinstated that to
avoid liability by the intermediaries, the intermediary must exercise due diligence.
2. The explanation as to "due diligence" depends upon the circumstances and the relative
facts of that particular case to reach a conclusion one way or the other. In the cases of
Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd,16 Vyakti Vikas Kendra India Public v. Jitendar Bagga

5
Para 9 of the fact sheet
6
Para 13 of the fact sheet
7
LNIND 2011 AP 446
8
2006 (6) BOM CR 50
9
2008 (2) GLH 477
10
907 F Supp 1361
11
(1965) 1 SCR 276
12
(1967) 1 SCR 831
13
(1976) 1 SCR 277
14
718 F Supp 2d 514 (S.D.N.Y 2010)
15
(00-1307) 534 U.S 438 (2002) 226 F. 3d 291
16
(1999) 4 All ER 342
 and Anr17, High Court of Gujarat and Anr. v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and
Ors,.18 Nirmaljit Singh Narula v. Indijobs19 At Hubpages.com & Ors, Sanjay Kumar
Kedia v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Anr.20 and Superintendent of Customs. V. L.
Abuthahir21 it was reinstated that even though the intermediary does not have the
knowledge of the illegal and infringing activities, the lack of exercise of due diligence on
the part of the intermediary would impose liability.
3. In the matter at hand, the social media platform speedogram and the Allogrian Head i.e.
the accused acted as an intermediary in provoking or urging the deceased to commit
suicide by publishing the comments, suggesting the death of the deceased, without any
filter.

[2.3] The accused is liable for abetment of offence u/s 84B of the IT Act

1. Section 84b states that whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in
consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Act for the
punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence
under this act.
2. Section 84b prescribes punishment for abetment of offence where no express provision
exists under the Act. Such punishments will be imposed as is provided for the
commission of the offence itself under this Act.
3. As aforesaid the accused is punishable for the abetment of offence i.e. Abetment to
suicide as there was an instigation on the part of accused towards the commission of
offence as proved above.
4. Hence to conclude it can be stated that the deceased committed suicide when the
speedogram users suggested her to do so, on her pole and the accused is liable as, being
the intermediary, he lacks due care and diligence and the social media platform headed
by him fails to provide with filters to hate comments that instigates a user to commit
suicide.

17
CS (OS) NO. 1340/2012 (DELHI HIGHCOURT)
18
2003 SCC (L&S) 565
19
190 (2012) DLT 51
20
2008(1) SCC (CRI) 346
21
2016-TIOL-2326-HC MAD NDPS
In the light of the aforementioned arguments, the counsel for prosecution humbly submits that
the ingredients of the offences charged against accused A-2 are satisfied and all the evidences are
corroborated in all material aspects which further proves that A-2 is guilty of abetment to
commit suicide u/s 306 of APC r/w sec. 84B of the IT Act.

IV. THAT THE 10 IDENTIFIED SPEEDOGRAM USERS HAVE ABETTED THE

SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED?

It is humbly submitted by the prosecution that the 10 identified (herein referred to as A-4), is
guilty of the offence of abetment to suicide u/s 306 of Allogrian Penal Code (herein referred to
as APC) r/w sec. 84B of the Information Technology Act (herein referred to as IT Act) in the
present matter.

[4.1] The accused has misused its right to freedom of speech and expression

1. The Counsel for the petitioners humbly submits that the accused has misused its freedom
of speech and expression on a social platform, speedogram. To prove the aforementioned
allegation, it is important to state that the right to speech and expression is subject to
reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(2).
2. In the case of Santokh Singh v. Delhi Administration22, it was held that Freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(l)(a) is not absolute. There is no such
thing as an absolute or unrestricted freedom of speech and expression wholly free from
restraint for that would amount to uncontrolled license which would tend to lead to
disorder and anarchy. Our Constitution has rightly attempted to strike a proper balance
between the various competing social interests
3. In Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P23, the Supreme Court stated that, "the phrase
'reasonable restriction' connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of
the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the
interests of the public. The word 'reasonable' implies intelligent care and deliberation,
that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates.

22
AIR 1973 SC 1094
23
AIR 1951 SC 11
 4. Where fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are being considered, a Court
should be cautious before accepting the views that some particular disregard of them is of
minimal account.
5. The power to impose restriction on fundamental rights is essentially a power to "regulate”
the exercise of these rights. In fact, “regulation” and not extinction of that which is to be
regulated is. generally speaking, the extent to which permissible restrictions may go in
order to satisfy the test of reasonableness24
6. In the present case, the deceased’s life revolved around the deeds and activities of
speedogram and she made all her decisions based on the comments of her followers.25
The accused was also well aware about the same as the producer of the show would
telecast her excessive Speedogram usage on television26.
7. Hence on the above stated premises it can be successfully concluded that the accused,
when expressed their opinion on the poll were very well aware of its repercussions and
hence inference can be drawn that the accused, while making that comment had mens rea
in doing so.

[4.2] The accused has provoked the deceased to commit suicide

1. The basic constituents of an offence under section 306 are suicidal death and instigation
27
thereof . Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of
conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide, in which case, "instigation" may have to be inferred.
2. In the given problem it is evident from the facts of the case that the deceased has suffered
over dosage due to consumption of melatonin pills along with liquor which has caused
death as specified in the post mortem report28.
3. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by
persuasion to do anything. Thus abetment may be by inaligation, conspiracy or

24
Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. Union ofIndia, AIR 1973 SC 106
25
Para 13 of the fact sheet
26
Para 13 of the fact sheet
27
Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 4 SCC 214
28
Annexure -3, post mortem report
 intentional aid as provided in the three clauses of the section.29Instigate means the active
role played by a person with a view to stimulate another person to do the thing.
4. In the matter at hand, the deceased was addicted to social media and had 1 million
followers on Speedogram30. Further the fact sheet suggests that “Pooja was so addicted
to Speedogram through the Speedo poll, Pooja used to ask her fans, which housemate she
should eliminate during the upcoming eviction. Quiet often she would act in accordance
to the feedback received from her Speedo poll.”31
5. To draw a line of conclusion, it can be rightfully stated that the accused persons were
well aware of their comments and statements made on the pole. Moreover, emphasizing
on the details made in the fact sheet, it will not be incorrect to infer that the accused
persons had a clear visual about the effect of their comments on the mind and action of
the deceased. Hence the inference that the comments of the accused instigated the
deceased to commit suicide is rightfully drawn.

[4.3] The accused is liable for the abetment of the offence u/s 84 B of the IT Act

1. An Act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is

committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with
the aid which constitutes the abetment32.
2. The abettor aids the offender in the commission of the crime and when he aids him he is
said to instigate him in popular parlance and to abet him in the language of law. Such aids
must be something more substantial than mere advice. Advice is not necessarily
abetment.33 Not only acquiescence, but also some degree of active support is essential to
constitute instigation.34 In the matter at hand, the deceased committed suicide after seeing
the comments on her speedogram pole.
3. Considering the definition of abetment in a strict sense, the instigation must have
reference to the thing that was done by the person who is instigated. It is only if this

30
Para 9 of the fact sheet
31
Para 13 of the fact sheet
32
Kartar Singh v State of Punjab, (1994) Cr LJ 3139 (SC).
33
Pramathanath v. State, A.I.R 1951 Cal. 581
34
Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 553
 condition is fulfilled that a person can be guilty of abetment by instigation.35 As aforesaid
the accused is punishable for the abetment of offence i.e. Abetment to suicide as there was an
instigation on the part of accused towards the commission of offence as proved above.
5. As aforesaid the accused is punishable for the abetment of offence i.e. Abetment to
suicide as there was an instigation on the part of accused towards the commission of
offence as proved above.
4. Hence to conclude it can be stated that the deceased committed suicide when the accused
suggested her to do so, on her pole with mens rea for the same.

In the light of the aforementioned arguments, the counsel for prosecution humbly submits that
the ingredients of the offences charged against accused A-4 are satisfied and all the evidences are
corroborated in all material aspects which further proves that A-4 is guilty of abetment to
commit suicide u/s 306 of APC r/w sec. 84B of the IT Act.

35
Baby John v. State, AIR 1953 T.C. 251