The Orissa High Court sustained the charge of abetment to suicide against the petitioner and observed that the material on record prima facie shows that the conduct of the petitioner caused the deceased to be mentally upset.
Brief Facts:
The deceased, who was working as PA to the petitioner went missing while on duty. His dead body was recovered from the dam site and the post-mortem disclosed the cause of death as drowning and there was no mention of any injuries on his body. The wife of the deceased filed a complaint against the petitioner and alleged that he was responsible for the death of the deceased. the investigation agency after the completion of the investigation found no foul play and concluded that no offence had been committed by the petitioners. The complaint then fled a protest petition against the final report and alleged that the matter was not investigated properly. Accordingly, the SDJM issued summons to the petitioners which has been opposed in the present petition.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that a criminal case being a serious matter cannot be initiated against a person as a matter of course and criminal proceedings involving grave offences cannot be taken lightly and therefore unless there are at least prima facie materials to show involvement of a person in the alleged occurrence, the Courts should be slow to act upon any complaint/allegation made by any person in this regard. It was further contended that there was no material to prima facie show that petitioners had abetted the suicide of the deceased. it was further contended that the delay in filing of the complaint shows that the same was a product of due deliberation and a calculated move and the same was filed solely with the intention of causing harassment to the petitioners.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel argued that even though the final report was reported showing a mistake of fact, it was open to the learned S.D.J.M., to act upon the protest petition filed by the complainant and no illegality can be attributed to the Court below to such extent. It was further argued that the procedure envisaged under Chapter-XV relating to the complaint was scrupulously followed by the Court below by postponing the issuance of process and it was only after examination of the witnesses produced by the complainant that the Court below deemed it fit to issue summons to the Petitioners. It was further contended that the role of the petitioner cannot be ascertained at this stage and can only be ascertained from the evidence on record during the trial.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that neither the medical evidence nor any other material prima facie suggests that the death was homicidal in nature. It was further stated that no allegation would even remotely link the Petitioners with the death of the deceased. The court concluded that there exist no materials to prima facie suggest the commission of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and observed that unless the possibility of homicidal death is established, it would be meaningless to put the effort into ascertaining the identity of the culprit.
On the issue of abetment to suicide, the court observed that the deceased was upset because of his service matters which was strong enough to lead him to commit suicide. The court referred to the judgement in Parveen Pradhan vs. the State of Uttaranchal, which held that to constitute ‘instigation’, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by ‘goading’ or ‘urging forward’. The court observed that the question of whether the conduct of the petitioner amounted to instigation can only be ascertained during trial from the evidence adduced and the investigation has not suggested any plausible reason for the deceased committing suicide other than being upset because of his service.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition in part and the impugned order was modified only to the extent of substitution of the offences under Sections 302/506/201/204 I.P.C. by the offences under Sections 306/120-B/34 of I.P.C.
Case Title: Manish Agarwal vs. State of Odhisa and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sashikanta Mishra
Case No.: CRLMC No.551 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Millan Kanungo and Mr. Yuvraj Paresh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. T.K Praharaj
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
