Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 306 r/w. 34 - Abetment of suicide - Nothing to show that any of the accused instigated or abetted deceased to commit suicide - From the face value of the record, offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the applicants - first information report is liable to be quashed and set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
Date : 4/4/2018.
Criminal
Application (APL) No. 789 of 2017
Sanjay & 5 Others Vs. (1)
State of Maharashtra & Another
Shri R. R.
Vyas, Advocate for the appellants Mrs. S. V. Kolhe, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the nonapplicant no. 1 None for the nonapplicant no. 2
Judgment
(Per : M. G. Giratkar, J.)
The
applicants challenged the first information report registered against them for
the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. It is alleged in the report by the wife of deceased that her
deceased husband Eknath Ramchandra Ghurde was working as Head Master at Primary
High School, Bhisi. On 1572017, her husband returned from the school. After
lunch, he was sleeping. In the evening, her son Anup told her that Assistant
Teachers, namely, Prakash Dhomne, Subhash Dhokne, Sanjay Gase, Gajanan
Kalbande, Amol Rakhonde and Ravi Solanke who obtained some withdrawals and cash
from deceased but not submitted bills of expenditure. They were not cooperating
the deceased. Due to their behaviour, her husband committed suicide in the
night of 1672017 by hanging. She
found one chit in the pocket of her deceased husband.
2. It
is submitted that the applicants not abetted deceased to commit suicide,
therefore, prayed to quash the first information report (FIR) registered
against them.
3. Heard
learned counsel Shri Vyas for the applicants. He has pointed out decision of
this Court to which one of us (B.R.
Gavai,
J) is party. Learned counsel has submitted that averments in the FIR even taken
as it is, then also, it does not constitute an offence of abetment to commit
suicide.
4. Heard
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Kolhe for the State/nonapplicant no.
1.
5. None
present for nonapplicant no. 2.
6. Perused
the report lodged by the nonapplicant no. 2. It is alleged in the report that
the applicants taken some withdrawal and cash from deceased and not given any
account, therefore, deceased hanged himself and committed suicide. It is
further alleged in the report that one chit was found in the pocket of deceased
in which he has stated that due to harassment of the applicants, he has
committed suicide.
7. It
is pertinent to note that deceased has committed misappropriation of Rs.
70,000/, therefore, letter was issued by the Block Education Officer. Deceased
replied the said letter but nowhere he mentioned about the expenditure and misappropriation
by the applicants. By letter dated 1572017, deceased informed the Block
Education Officer that receipts of expenditure were not bogus. It is clear from
the correspondence of the Block Education Officer and deceased that deceased
was informed about his misconduct from time to time. He was also directed to
produce receipts of expenditure etc. It was informed to the deceased by letter
dated 672017 that vouchers were wrong and there was misappropriation of Rs.
70,000/.
8. In
the FIR, nonapplicant no. 2 alleged that deceased left one chit making
allegations against the applicants but no such chit is produced by her. On the
other hand, documents produced on record show that deceased was involved in
misappropriation of the government money and, therefore, possibility of
committing suicide due to constant pressure on him cannot be ruled out. Nothing
is on record to show that the applicants abetted deceased to commit suicide.
9. In
the case of Dilip
s/o Ramrao Shirasao & ors. Vs. State
of Maharashtra and anr. reported
in 2016 ALL MR
(Cri) 4328, this Court
has observed as under :
…. In
such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the
deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a
conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal
omission to bring about the suicide.
….In
order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as
contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to
bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the
deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section
306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being
any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the socalled
suicide note.
10. In
the present case, nothing to show that any of the applicants instigated or
abetted deceased to commit suicide. From the face value of the record, offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against
the applicants. Hence,
in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992
Supp.(1) SCC 335, first
information report is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence,
we are inclined to allow the application and proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (ii) of the Criminal Application.
Comments
Post a Comment