Kerala High Court : [Law Student Suicide] "Media Trial (Against Accused) Will Not Bend The Court"

While hearing the bail applications preferred by the husband and in- laws of a young law student who recently took her life, the Kerala High Court strongly maintained that public noise and media opinion on the issue would not influence it in rendering justice [Mohammed Suhail & Ors. v State of Kerala & Anr.].

Less than a month ago, in an incident  which was shocked the State, Mofiya Parveen, a 2nd year LLB student, took her own life and left behind a suicide note allegedly blaming abuse and dowry harassment at the hands of her husband and in-laws. She had also named a police officer in the note for his alleged inaction on her complaints.

Justice Gopinath P was hearing the bail application moved by her husband, one Mohammed Suhail and his parents, when he took exception to the suggestion of the Public Prosecutor that the Court may hear the matter expeditiously and decline bail "to send a strong message to society"

The judge remarked orally that, "Don't argue that this is a message to society. They have not been convicted, this is not a punishment, this only for the purpose of aiding the investigation. I am not going to be swayed by any public opinion or media report. Let there be hundreds of media reports, let there be hundreds of panelists on hundreds of chat shows, whatever it is.”

The Court also remarked orally that,"Let there be hundreds of media reports, let there be hundreds of panelists on hundreds of chat shows, whatever it is".

The Court asked the prosecution if it had gone through the latest judgment of the Supreme Court, authored by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundaresh in which it was held if a person is accused in a non-bailable offence and his custody was not required during the period of investigation, then it is appropriate that such an accused be released on bail.

The Court demanded that, "Have you seen the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on bail by Justices Kaul and Sundaresh? I'm asking you because you said this is a message to the society. What did their lordships say about the philosophy of bail".

Justice Gopinath went on to mention a "classic judgement" from the USA on the inapplicability of media trials when it comes to administration of justice.

"There is a classic judgement on cases which attract media attention from the USA which says 'we do not administer justice in this country by plebiscite'," Justice Gopinath pointed out.

As the judge had a heavy board before him and in view of the fact that present case would require significant time for hearing, the Court declined to issue any orders hastily and posted the matter to be heard when the Court re-opens after Christmas vacation.

Subsequent to the unfortunate tragedy of Mofiya's alleged suicide, the accused husband and parents were booked for offences punishable under Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 304B (dowry death) and 306 (abetment of suicide) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to the petitioners, the said sections were incorporated into the First Information Report after the de-facto complainant, Mofiya's father Dilshad, gave a statement to the police.

The petitioners claimed that the the offences under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC would not be attracted against them.

According to the petitioners, even though the couple wed in a small Nikah ceremony in April 2021, the subsequent ceremony of Valeema in order to bring the bride to the home of the husband was not conducted since the parties decided to have it later.

In subsequent months, the deceased only visited the petitioners' home occasionally and during this time, they claim to have witnessed erratic behaviour from her. Therefore, it was contended that the proximate cause of the suicide may be the alleged irrational behaviour of the police officer.

The petitioners also alleged that Suhail divorced Mofiya by pronouncing talaq after several rounds of mediation were purportedly held before their Mahallu Jama-ath.

Moreover, it was contended that even though the names of the petitioners are recorded in the suicide note, it cannot be considered as conclusive proof of their involvement as held by the Kerala High Court in Damodaran ATV & Anr. v State of Kerala & Anr.

21-year-old Mofiya Parveen Dilshad hailed from Aluva, Kerala and was pursuing LLB course at the time of her death.

Before ending her life on the night of November 23, the young law student wrote a note allegedly accusing her husband Mohammed Suhail, his parents Yusuf and Rukhia, and also the Circle Inspector of the Aluva police station.

Mofiya had met her husband, Mohammed Suhail, on Facebook and Suhail had supposedly said that he had a job in the UAE, and that he was a vlogger. Soon after the wedding, Suhail allegedly demanded large sums of money from Mofiya and when such demands went unmet, he purportedly turned abusive.

She had previously approached the police with complaints in this regard but they were apparently disregarded with one police officer, who she named in the suicide note, summoning both families and reprimanding her.

The same night, Mofiya was found hanging in her room.

Soon after the incident, the police officer was removed from the post of Aluva East Station House Officer by the District Police Chief.

The matter will be heard next on 3^rd January, 2022 (Monday).

Source : Bar And Bench