Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Koram Ramesh Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5052 OF 2019
Between:
1. SRI KORAM RAMESH BABU, S/o. Nagoor Saaheb, Aged about 49 years, Advocate, R/o. Harijana Peta, Achanta Ve
Village, Achanta Mandal, West Godavari District.
...PETITIONER/ACC
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravat
...RESPONDENT/COMPLA
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Gr
Criminal Petition, the High Court Pleased to call for the records relating to SC.No.48 of 2020 on the file of Assistant Sessi on
Narsapur, West Godavari District arising out of crime No 122/2018 on the file of Achanta Police Station. Prayer is amende
Court order dated 07.02.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in Crl.P.No.5052 of 2019.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Petition,the High Court may be pleased Pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of charge sheet in SC No. 48 of
the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur West Godavari District and pass
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to amend the prayer in Crl.P.No.5052 of 2019, as "to quash the pr ocee
SC.No.48 of 2020, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District arising out of Crime No.l22 of
the file of Achanta Police Station" instead of "quash the proceedings in Crime No.l22 of 2018, on the file of A chanta Police Sta
pass
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Petition,the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of petitione in c
122/2018 on the file of Achanta Police Station, Achanta, West GOdavari District, Pending disposal of the above criminal peti
pass
This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hea
arguments of Sri POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on beha
Respondent No. and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent No.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), initially praying to call for
records and to quash the proceedings in Crime No.122 of 201
Achanta Police Station, Achanta, West Godavari District, registere
Magistrate and the jurisdictional Magistrate has committed the cas
the Court of Session and the same was registered as Sessions
No.48 of 2020 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsa
West Godavari District.
3. I.A.No.2 of 2024 is filed with a prayer to amend the pr
of the Criminal Petition as "to quash the proceedings
Sessions Case No.48 of 2020 on the file of the Assis
Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District, arising
of Crime No.122 of 2018 of Achanta Police Station, instea
praying to quash the proceedings in Crime No.122 of 201
Achanta Police Station" and the petition is allowed by o
dated 07.02.2024.
4. Now the present Criminal Petition is to quash
proceedings but for taking cognizance against the petition
A1 in Sessions Case No.48 of 2020 on the file of the Assis
Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District.
5. The facts succinctly are that:
The deceased-Chodagiri Prem Babu, son of Nagesw
Rao, aged about 32 years, went to the house of his mother
law at Vemavaram village at about 7-00 p.m. and he questio
his mother-in-law why she has washed his clothes, for that
mother-in-law has scolded the deceased. In view of the sa
the deceased felt bad and to terrorize her, he consu
pesticide. At that time, his brother-in-law Kolati Dilip took
deceased to Palakol Hospital on bike and joined him in
occurred on 26.09.2018 and the deceased died on 27.09.2
at 8-00 a.m. Basing upon the statement given by the decea
the police have investigated the case and submitted the ch
sheet alleging that the deceased consumed liquor and cam
the house of the accused No.2 and abused her in fi
language and A2 placed the matter before A1 by name Ko
Ramesh Babu (petitioner herein), who admonished
deceased and slapped the deceased and A1 and A2 uttered
deceased that he would rather commit suicide so that
problems will be solved.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 would contend
the accused have not abetted the deceased to commit sui
and, in fact, the deceased has abused A2 in filthy language
the petitioner/A1 admonished the deceased and the decea
has categorically stated in his statement that A2 has sco
the deceased and the deceased felt bad and in order to terro
A2, the deceased consumed the pesticide. Learned cou
appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 would submit th
statement to the police with regard to cause of his death
treated as dying declaration and it is a very impor
document because it amounts verba-dicta in evidence and
it is admissible under Section 162(2) of Cr.P.C. and when
author of the statement dies, it becomes his dying declara
under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
7. As seen from the statement of the deceased, there is
ingredients of Section 107 IPC as there is no instigation
provoke or incite or encouragement to constitute the offe
under Section 306 IPC and he placed reliance on the follow
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to buttress
contention.
(1) Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh 1,
(2) Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2 and
(3) Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 3.
(4) Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 4.
8. Where the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kum
case (1 supra), held that:
Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite o
encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement o
"instigation", though it is not necessary that actua
words must be used to that effect or what constitute
"instigation" must necessarily and specifically b
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonab
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable o
being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts o
omission or by a continued course of conduct, create
such circumstances that the deceased was left with n
other option except to commit suicide, in which case, a
"instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered i
a fit of anger or emotion without intending th
consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to b
instigation. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a perso
who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge o
encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" o
"urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the wor
"goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action
somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advance
Learner's Dictionary-7th Edition).
9. As seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme C
in Ramesh Kumar's case (1 supra), to attract Section 107 I.P
there should be instigation to the deceased to commit sui
or there is any conspiracy for doing that thing or whether t
have intentionally aided for the doing that thing has to be s
from the facts of the case in order to bring the accused un
the definition of the abetment under Section 107 I.P.C.
10. The deceased in his statement given to the police
stated that in order to terrorize A2, he has consumed
pesticide. There is no such instigation to the deceased
commit suicide or there is no conspiracy and, in fact,
consumed the pesticide to terrorize A2. There is no spe
allegation against the petitioner/A1 that they have instiga
the deceased to commit suicide.
11. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) case (3 supr
word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending
consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to
instigation.
12. In Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 5 ,
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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 tha
actual words must be used to that effect. or what constitutes instigation
"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engage
with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for th
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing
or Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, th
doing of that thing."
Explanation 1.--A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or b
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.
Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 read
as under:
"Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of th
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate th
commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof
is said to aid the doing of that act."
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person o
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positiv
act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
13. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ca
supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that there should be inte
to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter
instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to d
act'. To satisfy the requirement of 'instigation', though it is not nece
that actual words must be used to that effect or what consti
'instigation' must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence
be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his ac
word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending
consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geo Varghese vs. Stat
Rajasthan and another case (2 supra), held that when ther
any intention on the part of the person to abet the commis
of suicide by one of his own pupil, no mens rea can
attributed and when an element of abetment is conspicuo
missing from the allegations leveled in the FIR in the absenc
the abetment missing from the allegations, the essen
ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC do not exist.
15. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as seen from the statement of the deceased, there is no spe
allegation against the petitioner/A1 with regard to
abetment of suicide or instigation or wording to commit suic
which is conspicuously missing in the complaint and as per
statement given to the police, the deceased consumed
pesticide in order to threat A2. The petitioner/accused N
has slapped the deceased which act of the petitioner do not
under the definition of abetting to commit suicide and
statement made by the deceased to the police also supports
case of the petitioner that no abetment was encouraged by
petitioner/accused No.1. As there are no ingredients attrac
Section 107 IPC, the abetment does not arise.
16. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is liable to be allowed
accordingly, it is allowed and the proceedings against the petitione
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any in this c
shall stand closed.
REG
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION O
To,
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravat
2. One CC to SRI. POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to SRI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Advocate [OPUC]
Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT
TRRJ
DATED:16/02/2024
ORDER
