BERIN P VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A person attempts to commit suicide. He is culpably abetted by another to so commit suicide. Providentially he escapes and he does not die. Is the law helpless against the one, who abets the commission of suicide ( I mean the attempt thereof) merely because the attempt was unsuccessful Is he guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w. 511 I.P.C or at least under Section 309 r/w. 116 IPC Or, is the law to throw its hands up and say that you can go on abetting; you can go on attempting to persuade or goad a person to commit suicide; you may succeed in your attempt to abet; he may attempt to commit suicide also; but if he does not die, you can go scot free. Can that be the law

(2.) How serious is the law in its attempt to prevent ragging Do we lack the societal, political legislative and administrative will to prevent ragging Do we accept ragging as not serious enough that it can be left entirely to the managements principals and wardens to tackle the problem Why does ragging continue to be a non-cognizable, and bailable offence it he statute book, fettering considerably the effectiveness of the preventive action possible and the deterrence against commission of such offence of ragging

(3.) These sets of questions, the former legally interesting and the latter socially disturbing, do arise for consideration in this bail application.