Two women who verbally abused a minor girl and told her to die were held guilty for abetment of suicide. The Court confirmed their conviction but reduced their jail sentence, making them pay a higher fine instead. The judgment confirms that the law applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their gender.
Brief Facts of the Case
- The victim was a 15-year-old girl in a relationship with her neighbour’s son.
- On 18 August 2011, the boy’s aunts, Kayar Nisha and Rafia, confronted the girl at her doorstep.
- They used filthy and sexually offensive language and told her to “go and die.”
- Humiliated and upset, the girl poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. She died two weeks later.
- The trial court found both women guilty under Section 305 IPC and sentenced them to 3 years of jail with a ₹2,000 fine.
- They appealed the decision in the High Court.
Legal Provisions Involved in the Case
- Section 305 IPC – If someone encourages or causes a minor to commit suicide, they can be punished with life imprisonment or even death.
- Section 374(2) CrPC – Allows a convicted person to challenge their conviction and sentence.
- Section 313 CrPC – Gives the accused a chance to explain their side during trial.
Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioners (The Accused Women):
- They claimed they never wanted the girl to die — they only scolded her.
- Said their intention was to stop a teenage love affair, not to push her to suicide.
- Requested leniency due to personal hardships — one was a widow and old, the other had small children.
- Already spent about 3 months in jail.
Respondent (State/Government):
- Pointed out that the women’s abuses were extremely insulting and directly targeted the girl’s dignity.
- The girl took the extreme step right after the verbal abuse, showing a clear link.
- Argued that the punishment was already light for such a serious offence.
Court’s Observation
- The Court agreed that the two women’s words were harsh and humiliating.
- It confirmed that their actions did amount to abetment of suicide.
- However, the Court also considered their situations:
- One was a 64-year-old widow.
- The other was a mother of two young kids and worked as a labourer.
- Both had already served around 3 months in prison.
- The Court felt their actions were driven by outdated thinking, not criminal intent.
- So, it reduced the jail sentence to the time already served and increased the fine to ₹20,000 each.
- If they failed to pay the fine, they would serve 2 months of simple imprisonment.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The Court held the women accountable and confirmed their convictions. However, instead of increasing their jail time, it gave them a second chance with a higher fine. The message is clear — no one is above the law, regardless of gender.
Comments from the author of this website
Would men be shown the same mercy?
Probably not. If men had done the same thing, the chances of a reduced sentence would be much lower. Courts are still more sympathetic to women even when they are at fault.
Is 3 months in jail enough for a life lost?
A minor girl died by suicide. Yet the punishment turned out to be just 3 months in jail plus a fine. This raises serious questions about whether such a sentence sends a strong message.
Different yardsticks for different genders
Even though the law says men and women are equal, courts often show more leniency to women. That needs to change if justice is to be truly fair.
Lessons for Men:
Keep evidence. If you’re being abused, harassed, or pushed emotionally, collect proof (texts, audio, video, witnesses).
Know that women can also be charged and punished under the law. But fair punishment depends on how your case is presented.
Be ready with personal details — like health issues, dependents, and financial conditions — if ever caught in a legal case. Courts do consider these things during sentencing.
Demand equal treatment — not more, not less — just fairness based on facts.
Final Thoughts
This judgment is a step toward applying laws like Section 305 IPC more equally. But it also reveals a lingering double standard — where women are seen as less responsible, even when found guilty. While the conviction sets the right tone, the reduced punishment may send the wrong message.
For men, this case is a reminder to stay alert, aware, and legally prepared. Gender should not define justice. Every accused — man or woman — should be judged by facts, not by sympathy.
Men facing legal issues must protect themselves by staying informed, collecting evidence, and seeking solid legal guidance at the earliest stage. Only then can we work towards a truly balanced and fair legal system.
Read Complete Judgement Here