Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The vs Unknown on 28 March, 2023

   HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.12242 of 2018

ORDER:

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 & 3 in P.R.No.30

of 2017 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at

Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. The petitioners, who are

husband and wife, had advanced certain loans to the deceased

who had taken loans from various other persons also. It appears

that the deceased lady, who was under pressure from her

creditors, had initially gone away from her house along with her

daughter, on 18.12.2015, leaving a suicide note stating that she

was leaving her house, with a view to commit suicide, on

account of harassment of the creditors. However, she came back

on 25.02.2016."

2. On 30.08.2016, the deceased is said to have

committed suicide after writing a suicide note giving a list of

creditors who are said to have been harassing her for return of

their money and that she was committing suicide as she was

unable to bear the harassment of these creditors. The

petitioners are also mentioned in the said suicide note.

3. The investigating officer after completion of

investigation has filed a charge-sheet under Section 306 r/w. 34

of Indian Penal Code and the same has been taken cognizance

by the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Chilakaluripet, Guntur

District as P.R.C.No.30 of 2017. A perusal of the charge-sheet

would show that the petitioners have been including as accused

on the ground that the deceased had included the names of the

accused, in her suicide note, as the persons who are harassing

her for repayment of their money. The petitioners have

approached this Court, by way of the present of Criminal

Petition, for quashing the same.

4. Heard, Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel

for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for

the 1st respondent and Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned

counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

5. Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners

had not in any manner committed an offence under Section 306

of Indian Penal Code and relied upon the following Judgments

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as this Court:-

i) Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr1 (paragraph Nos.20, 21, 22, 28 & 30)

ii) Barapati Srilekha Vs. Ramachandra Reddy Patolla & ors2.

iii) Padi Venkateswarlu & ors Vs. The State of the Andhra Pradesh & ors3 and

iv) The Judgment dated 02.05.2022 in Criminal Petition No.6981 of 2019 in the case of Adusumilli Raja Kumari and ors. Vs. Chunduri Udaya Lakshmi & ors.

6. The relevant provisions of law which are relevant for

the present case are:

Section 107 IPC:-

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

(Firstly)-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly)--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for 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.

Section 108 IPC defines the term 'Abettor', which reads thus:

108. Abettor--A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if

2013 10 SCC 591

2 2017 3 ALT (Crl.) 219 (A.P)

3 2021 (2) ALD (Crl.) 400 (A.P) : 2021 (1) ALT (Crl.) 255 (A.P)

committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

Section 306 IPC deals with the punishment for abetment of suicide and the same stipulates as follows:

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.

7. In the present case, the deceased had committed

suicide. The question of whether the petitioners herein, had

abetted her in the commission of her suicide is the issue before

this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had interpreted

the definition of abetment in Section 107 of Indian Penal Code

in the case of C.B.I Vs. V.C. Shukla in the following manner:-

"...a person abets the doing of a thing when he does any of the acts mentioned in the following three clauses.

(i) instigates that person to do that thing.

(ii) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that things.

(iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

So far as the first two clauses are concerned it is not necessary that the offence instigated should have been committed. For understanding the word 'aid' in the third clause it would be advantageous to see Explanation 2 in Section 107 IPC, which reads thus:

"Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of the act, does anything in order to

facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act"

It is thus clear that under the third clause when a person abets by aiding, the act so aided should have been committed in order to make such aiding an offence....."

Clauses (i) and (ii) extracted above do not apply to this case because no 'instigation' by or 'conspiracy' between the petitioner and the other accused is alleged by the prosecution. The third clause also is not attracted because no 'aid' was given by the petitioner to the deceased when she committed suicide. Aiding suicide by a person can only be by positive acts of assisting in procuring the material required for suicide, like a person supplying rope or other material for hanging, when a person expresses his desires to commit suicide by hanging, or supplying weapon or material like drugs, poison, etc., when the person intending to commit suicide asks such aid, or if a person suggest the modes in which suicide can be committed like jumping into a river, lake or well, etc., to a person who intends to commit suicide."

8. In the present case, the allegations against the

petitioners are that they had been harassing the deceased lady

for recovery of the loans and advances by them. There are no

specifics or details of the said harassment except the fact that

the deceased had stated so in her suicide note. In the

circumstances, the only an allegation against the petitioners is

an allegation of general harassment for recovery of their money.

Such harassment would not fall under Clause-1 & 2 of the

above interpretation of the term "Abetment". Clause-3 requires

an intention on the part of the petitioners to encourage the

deceased person to commit. There is no allegation against the

petitioners of having done anything with an intention of