Sugavasi Chakradhar, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5862 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.6663 OF 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of

Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking pre-

arrest bail, by the petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.653 of

2022 of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District, registered

for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 306 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1908 ('IPC' in short).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, that the defacto

complainant's son is used to do contractual works. He

undertook a sub contract work in the name of Sahasra

Infratech from Sudhakar Infra, for carrying out storm water

drain works at Nellore. Sahasra Infratech was incorporated in

the name of the complainant's daughter in law and

Chakradhar's daughter. The son of the complainant and

Chakradhar, together doing contractual works. After taking

four bills, accused cheated his son without giving money and

harassed by avoiding. His son faced severe stress and

accused instigated his son to commit suicide. On 19.08.2022,

his son explained the situation to one Rohit and his daughter

in law that he is going to commit suicide. Thereafter, they

sent one Narendra Reddy and when he went to that place and

observed that the door was locked from inside. After seeing

inside, the deceased was hanging to the ceiling fan, the said

Narendra Reddy got his son down and taken to Manipal

Hospital. After examined the deceased, the doctor declared

him brought dead. Hence, the above crime was registered

against the petitioner.

3. Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel

representing Smt. S. Pranati, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for

the respondent-State.

4. Learned Senior Counsel, in elaboration to what has been

raised in the grounds, contended that on a plain reading of

the complaint no ingredients attracting Section 420 and 306

of IPC are found. Further, it is contended that the petitioner

was apprehending arrest in the hands of the police basing on

the false allegations. In support of his contention, he placed

reliance on Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of

Maharashtra and others 1 and drawn the attention of this

Court to the relevant portion of the said judgment, which

reads as under:

"49. Before we evaluate the contents of the FIR, a reference to Section 306 IPC is necessary. Section 306 stipulates that if a person commits suicide "whoever abets the commission of such suicide" shall be punished with imprisonment extending up to 10 years. Section 107 is comprised within Chapter V IPC, which is titled "Of Abetment". Section 107 provides:

"107. Abetment of a thing--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--

First--Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.--A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Illustration

A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

50. The first segment of Section 107 defines abetment as the instigation of a person to do a particular thing. The second segment defines it with reference to engaging in a conspiracy with one or

(2021) 2 SCC 427

more other persons for the doing of a thing, and an act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. Under the third segment, abetment is founded on intentionally aiding the doing of a thing either by an act or omission. These provisions have been construed specifically in the context of Section 306 to which a reference is necessary in order to furnish the legal foundation for assessing the contents of the FIR. These provisions have been construed in the earlier judgements of this Court in State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal2,Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab3 , Kishori Lal vs State of M.P.(Kishori Lal) 4 and Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat5. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.6 Mukundakam Sharma, J., speaking for a two judge Bench of this Court and having adverted to the earlier decisions, observed:

"12...It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable".

51. The Court noted that before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they "must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide". Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori Lal (supra), "literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything". In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan7, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Dalveer Bhandari,J., observed:

"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

1994 SCC (Cri) 107

2005 SCC (Cri) 56

(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701

(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 62

(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896

(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465

55. More recently in M. Arjunan v. State, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice R. Banumathi, J., elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the following observations:

"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC."

57. Similarly, in Rajesh v. State of Haryana8, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice L. Nageswara Rao, held as follows:

"9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2019 decided on 18 January 2019 PART I be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."

62. Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to advert briefly to the contents of the FIR in the present case. The FIR recites that the spouse of the informant had a company carrying on the business of architecture, interior design and engineering consultancy. According to the informant, her husband was over the previous two years "having pressure as he did not receive the money of work carried out by him". The FIR recites that the deceased had called at the office of the appellant and spoken to his accountant for the payment of money. Apart from the above statements, it has been stated that the deceased left behind a suicide note stating that his "money is stuck and following owners of respective companies are not paying our legitimate dues". Prima facie, on the application of the test which has been laid down by this Court in a consistent line of authority which has been noted above, it cannot be said that the

(2020) 15 SCC 359

appellant was guilty of having abetted the suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC. These observations, we must note, are prima facie at this stage since the High Court is PART I still to take up the petition for quashing. Clearly however, the High Court in failing to notice the contents of the FIR and to make a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role, functions and jurisdiction when seized of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court recited the legal position that the jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly. These words, however, are not meaningless incantations, but have to be assessed with reference to the contents of the particular FIR before the High Court. If the High Court were to carry out a prima facie evaluation, it would have been impossible for it not to notice the disconnect between the FIR and the provisions of Section 306 IPC. The failure of the High Court to do so has led it to adopting a position where it left the appellant to pursue his remedies for regular bail under Section 439. The High Court was clearly in error in failing to perform a duty which is entrusted to it while evaluating a petition under Section 482 albeit at the interim stage."

Further, it is stated that in the event if the petitioner is

arrested, his reputation in the family and in the society will be

affected and prays this Court to consider this application.

5. On the other hand learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor opposed the application and contended that

though substantial investigation is completed, he apprehends

that if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, he may not co-

operate with further investigation and trial and may influence

the witnesses. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the Criminal

Petition.

6. Taking submissions of both the counsel and facts and

circumstances of the case into consideration, prima facie it is

found that ingredients of Section 306 are not found in the

complaint.

For better appreciations Section 306 IPC is extracted

hereunder:

"306. Abetment of suicide - if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

In view of the above observations and in view of the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra,

and as substantial investigation is completed, this Court is

inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, however by

duly taking the apprehensions of the learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor into consideration, on the following

conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the

event of his arrest in Crime No.653 of 2022 of Tadepalli Police

Station, Guntur District, on his executing self bond for

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two

sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station

House Officer, Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District; and

ii) On release, the petitioners shall report before the Station

House Officer, Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District, once in

a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 12.00

noon till filing of charge sheet.

(iii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with

the prosecution evidence. He shall make himself available to

the investigating officer whenever required by them to

facilitate proper investigation in this case.

(iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact any

witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt

shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses

and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with

the investigation.

Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and breach of any of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail.

It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the findings in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering the bail in the above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 05th September, 2022 AG

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6663 OF 2022

Date : 05.09.2022

AG