Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vaddi Vijaya Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6784 of 2019
ORDER:
First Petitioner is working as Teacher in Mandal Praja
Parishad Primary School. The deceased, Padala Rathan
Bharat, who is elected as Chairperson/ President of Parent-
Teacher Association Standing Committee of the said School.
1st Petitioner's husband is chronic patient, taking advantage
of the situation, the deceased developed intimacy with the
first petitioner/accused and thereafter he tried to molest
her. Due to the unbearable harassment of the deceased,
First Petitioner/Accused lodged a report against the
deceased to the Gollaprolu Police Station on 10.11.2016,
police registered a crime vide F.I.R. No.165 of 2016 under
Section 354, 354 A, 354 D and 506 IPC, police arrested the
deceased/accused and later he released on bail.
2. Be that as it may, the deceased by name Padala Ratan
Bharat has committed suicide on 30.11.2016. The deceased
who is accused in Crime No.165 of 2016, for the offence
under Sections 354, 354A 354D and 506 IPC, who
disgusted and set ablaze himself in the Mandal Praja
Parishad Upper Primary English Medium School premises
by pouring petrol, there by the school staff and neighbours
has extinguished / doused the fire and the deceased/
accused was shifted to Hospital, later to a Government
General Hospital at Guntur. The police registered the crime
as FIR No.172/2016 under Section 309 IPC and recorded
the statement of the deceased/accused which reads thus:
"I Padala Ratan Bharat S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged
41 years, Caste Kapu, Gandhinagar, Gollaprolu,
studied up to 10th Class and have been working as
president in Right of Information, Gollaprolu and
working as Journalist in Andhra Pradesh.
On 10.11.2016, Vaddi Vijaya Kumari who was working
as a Teacher in MPP School lodged a complaint
against me on the charge of harassing her sexually
and a criminal case was registered and I was sent to
judicial custody and I enlarged on bail on 17.11.2016.
I being felt sad of the incident and with a view to
commit suicide purchased 2 ltrs of petrol at 2.30 pm.,
and set myself ablazed in front of all at MPP School
(Girls). On noticing this, the staff doused the flames
by pouring water. My fully burnt skin peeled out and
I was admitted to GGH.
3. It appears that after recording the statements of
deceased family, the police altered the Section from 309 to
306 IPC.
4. After investigation, the police have laid the charge
sheet/final report before the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Gollaprolu.
5. The deceased wife and his father filed a protest
petition before JMFC, Pithapuram in crime No.172 of 2016
stating that the police have not investigated the case
properly and the investigation is a table investigation and
prayed to take the cognizance of the complaint and to
punish the petitioners/accused herein.
6. After recording the sworn statement, the learned
Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against
petitioners/accused A1 to A6 for the offence under Section
306 IPC and allotted PRC No.18/2018 and committed the
accused to Sessions Court as the offence is triable by
Sessions Court.
7. On committal to the Sessions Court the PRC was
registered as Sessions case and made over to the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Pithapuram. Now the SC No.220 of 2019
was assailed in the present Criminal Petition on the
following grounds
(1) On entire reading of complaint, there are no
ingredients of Section 107.
8. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents/
complainant would submit that ingredients are applicable
and contends that petitioners herein filed discharge petition
under Section 245 (2) Crl.P.C. and the same was dismissed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Pithapuram by an order dated 13.05.2019. Now, the
petitioner is precluded from filing the petition under Section
482 Crl.P.C., hence prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
9. In the above said context, the Sections that are
germane for consideration is 306 and 307 IPC, which reads
thus:
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.
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 wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful 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.
10. According to Section 306 IPC, whoever abets the
commission of suicide shall be punished with
imprisonment. Section 107 of IPC defines the abetment.
11. The ingredients of Section 107:
1) One person instigates any person to do that thing.
2) Conspiracy for the doing of that thing.
3) Intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission for doing
that thing.
Therefore, in abetment there may be instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid.
12. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1 held thus:
16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti,
J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is
to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to
do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
"instigation", though it is not necessary that actual
words must be used to that effect or what constitutes
"instigation" must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable
of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts
or omission or by a continued course of conduct,
created such circumstances that the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide, in
which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred.
A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot
be said to be instigation.
17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who
instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or
encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or
"urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word
"goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into
action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise
Oxford English Dictionary); and "to keep irritating or
1 AIR 2001 SC 3037
annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford
Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition).
13. In view of the aforesaid ingredients of the Section 107,
whether, the petitioners herein have instigated the deceased
to commit suicide or there is any conspiracy for doing that
thing or whether they have intentionally aided for the doing
that thing has to be seen from the facts of the case in order
to bring the petitioners accused under the definition of the
abetment under Section 107 of the IPC.
14. The deceased in his statement given to the police, has
stated that a complaint was lodged against the deceased for
harassing the first petitioner herein sexually and a Criminal
case was registered and he was sent to judicial custody and
enlarged on bail on 17.11.2016, he (deceased) being felt sad
of the incident and with a view to commit suicide,
purchased two litres of petrol and he himself set ablaze in
front of all at MPP School (girls), on noticing the same the
staff doused the flames by pouring water.
15. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners
herein that the petitioners have instigated the deceased to
commit suicide and there is no such conspiracy for doing
that thing and there is no aid much less intentional aid was
caused by the petitioners herein to commit suicide by the
deceased, as per the statement given by the deceased to the
police.
16. The statement made (which is extracted in para no.2)
by the deceased to the police is admissible in evidence as
the statement was given by the deceased with regard to
cause of his death, under Section 32 of evidence Act when a
statement made by a dying person to the cause of his death
or any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in
death are admissible in all cases where death comes into
question, which is called dying declaration. In the
statement given to the police there is no such statement was
given by the deceased that the petitioners/accused abetted
or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
17. The deceased he himself set ablaze by pouring petrol
on himself due to the act that he has committed suicide as
he was sent to judicial custody for harassing the first
petitioner herein. There is no such allegation that any act
was done by the petitioners herein, when a statement made
by the deceased about the cause of his death the other
statements by any other 3rd person is inadmissible and need
not be taken into consideration. Even the wife and father of
the deceased have not stated about any abetment were
made by the petitioners/ accused. Their specific statement
in the protest petition is that police have not conducted the
investigation in proper manner and they only conducted a
table investigation.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh v.
State of Gujarat and another2 in the said case also there is
no evidence of instigation, rejection, and held that not
quashing of petition is impropriety.
19. In the said case, the deceased has given a statement
stating that he is going to commit suicide due to his
functioning style and his boss is responsible for his death.
Basing on the said statement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held in the following manner:
"As regards the suicide note, which is a
document of about 15 pages, all that we can
2 2010 (2) (Crl.) 861 (SC)
say is that it is an anguish expressed by the
driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had
wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do
not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted
as expressing anything intentional on the part
of the accused that the deceased might commit
suicide.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan3 explained the concept of abetment:
"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 36 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."
21. The ingredients of Section 107 are manifestly lacking
in the present case or in the statement made by the 2nd and
3 (2010) 12 SCC 190
3rd respondents herein, in the protest petition, and they
have not stated that the petitioners have abetted or
instigated the deceased to commit suicide and as per the
statement of the deceased he set himself ablaze indeed for
his acts done towards the first petitioner/accused. It
appears that the deceased being hypersensitive have
committed suicide for registering a case against him which
lead to judicial custody. Therefore, there are no ingredients
which attracts Section 107 IPC, as such, the Criminal
Petition is liable to be allowed.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that the petitioners herein have filed a petition under
Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioners/accused
No.1 to 6 herein and the same was dismissed by order dated
13.05.2019 vide Criminal MP No.1815 of 2018 in PRC No.8
of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Pithapuram. Therefore, the petitioners cannot
file the present Criminal Petition for the same relief. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
23. To answer the issue, this Court relies on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Parmar
v. State of Rajasthan4 in which by following the judgment of
Apex court in Sanjay Gandhi's case is held in paragraph
nos. 9 and 10.
"In Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India5, this court while
dealing with the competence of the Magistrate to discharge
an accused, in a case like the instant one at hand, held :
"....it is not open to the committal Court to launch
on a process of satisfying itself that a prima facie
case has been made out on the merits. The
jurisdiction once vested in him under the earlier
Code but has been eliminated now under the
present Code. Therefore, to hold that he can go into
the merits even for a prima facie satisfaction is to
frustrate the Parliament's purpose in re-
moulding Section 207-A (old Code) into its present
non-discretionary shape. Expedition was intended
by this change and this will be defeated
successfully if interpretatively we hold that a dress
rehearsal of a trial before the Magistrate is in order.
In our view, the narrow inspection hole through
which the committing Magistrate has to look at the
case limits him merely to ascertain whether the
4 2012 (12) SCC 406
5 AIR 1978 SC 514
case, as disclosed by the police report, appears to
the Magistrate to show an offence triable solely by
the Court of Session. Assuming the facts to be
correct as stated in the police report, .....the
Magistrate has simply to commit for trial before the
Court of Session. If, by error, a wrong section of the
Penal Code is quoted, he may look into that aspect.
If made-up facts unsupported by any material are
reported by the police and a sessions offence is
made to appear, it is perfectly open to the Sessions
Court under Section 227 CrPC to discharge the
accused. This provision takes care of the alleged
grievance of the accused."
(Emphasis added)
Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that
when an offence is cognizable by the Sessions court, the
Magistrate cannot probe into the matter and discharge
the accused. It is not permissible for him to do so, even
after considering the evidence on record, as he has no
jurisdiction to probe or look into the matter at all. His
concern should be to see what provisions of the Penal
statute have been mentioned and in case an offence
triable by the Sessions Court has been mentioned, he
must commit the case to the Sessions Court and do
nothing else.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Prasad v.
Bashir & others6 held that only in cases where the High
Court finds that when there has been a failure of justice or
misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or
order was not correct, the High Court may, in its discretion
to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice
can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.
25. In the present case, the Magistrate who dismissed the
application for discharge, does not even have jurisdiction to
entertain the application for discharge, in view of the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Parmar
case (referred supra), as such the order of discharge is
nonest in the eye of law, hence the present application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Therefore, the
order of dismissal of the discharge petition by the
Magistrate is not a ground to dismiss the present Criminal
petition. In the above said circumstances, the contention
2001 (8) SCC 522
raised by the counsel for the respondents that the Court
cannot exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
26. As there is no specific allegation with regard to
abetment of suicide, the Criminal Petition is allowed
quashing the proceedings in Sessions Case No.220 of 2019
on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, East Godavari
District, Pithapuram.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any
shall stand closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 08.12.2023
Harin
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
Crl.P No. 6784 OF 2019
Date: 08.12.2023
Harin
