A father who looked away

By: Rishi Raj Singh
Recently, three sisters aged 16, 14, and 8 died by suicide in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Reports suggest that the girls had developed a strong interest in Korean movies, music and dramas and were spending long hours on their mobile phones. Their father had bought them the devices but was reportedly not monitoring their use or their schooling.

A few days before their deaths, the father forcibly took away the phones and sold them. Distressed by this, the girls allegedly left behind a note and jumped from a building, according to the police’s preliminary investigation.


Mental health experts point out that addiction in children— whether to mobile phones or substanc-es—often develops in stages. It typically begins with access to a device, followed by growing interest in social media, reels, and chats. Over time, this can turn into a daily compulsion. In the next stage, denial of access may lead to anxiety, irritability, or aggression. In extreme cases, prolonged dependency can contribute to depression and suicidal thoughts, requiring urgent intervention.

Under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, abetment of suicide— including acts of assistance, instigation, or the creation of circumstances that may drive a person to take their own life—is punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years along with a fine. In my opinion, investigating agencies should examine whether the father’s actions in this case attract provisions in connection with the deaths of the three girls.

Psychologists note that individuals can be directly or indirectly linked to circumstances that lead to suicide, especially in cases involving minors who depend on parental guidance and supervision.

Under the Parental Accountability and Responsibility Act, granting children unrestricted access to phones without regard for their age constitutes an offence. It is a parent’s fundamental duty to provide educational guidance—a duty that went unfulfilled here. The phone was handed over merely to keep the children occupied; its misuse was left unaddressed. Even after recognizing the girls’ growing obsession with Korean entertainment, the father took no corrective action. Rather than seeking professional help, he chose to sell the phone — a decision that, in the end, led to their deaths.

The first step is educating children about the consequences of mobile addiction. If that proves insufficient, professional counselling should follow. Experts believe children turn to phones as an escape when their desires, expectations, and dreams go unfulfilled — and that addressing those unmet needs is the most effective way to loosen the grip of digital dependency. When children find joy in play, in sport, or in the bonds formed in a classroom, the brain’s own reward chemicals— dopamine and endorphins—do the rest.

In this case, the parent provided none of those opportunities. Any parent who notices signs of illness or distress in their child would ordinarily seek help without hesitation — and living near Delhi, access to such resources was hardly an obstacle. The father had the means, the proximity, and the chance to save three lives. He simply did not make the time.

In 2024, two parents in the US were sentenced to 15 years in prison under the Parental Accountability Act. James and Jennifer Crumbley had gifted their teenage son a firearm for his birthday. While gun ownership is not uncommon there, they failed to monitor how he used it. When the boy began drawing disturbing images of school shootings, teachers alerted the parents and urged them to seek psychiatric help. The warning went unheeded. The child went on to shoot four classmates — and ended up in a juvenile facility, while his parents were sent to adult prison.

The Ghaziabad case must be viewed through a similar lens. The father’s conduct deserves serious scrutiny under the Parental Accountability Act. By providing the children with mobile phones without monitoring their use, failing to address signs of deepening addiction, he set in motion a chain of events that ended in three deaths. Holding him accountable for abetment is not merely about justice in this instance—it is a necessary warning to every parent who might otherwise make the same mistakes.

(The writer is a former Kerala DGP, prisons)