Kamlesh vs The State Of Maharashtra
2012 Latest Caselaw 310 Bom

                          1                           Cri. Revn. Appln 38/2011


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,




                                                                         
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 38/2011




                                                 
     1.    Kamlesh s/o Prtapbhal Thakkar,
           Age: 31 years, Occu. Business,




                                                
           R/o Ward No.3,
           Behind Suyog Mangal Karyalaya
           Shrirampur, Taluka Shrirampur,
           District Ahmednagar.




                                   
     2.    Akil s/o Aziz Pathan,
           Age : 34 years, Occ. Prive Service,
                     
           R/o Ward No.7,
           Ner Agashe Hospital,
           Shrirampur, Taluka Shrirampur,
                    
           District Ahmednagar.
                                                                  ...Applicants.
                 Versus

     1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      


     2.    Sow. Arti w/o Anil Bihani,
   



           Age : 40 years, Occu. Housheold,
           R/o Near Market Gate, Belapur
           Tq. Shrirampur,
           District : Ahmednagar.





                                                              ...Respondents.
                                     .....
     Shri V.N. Damle h/f Shri H.F. Pawar, Advocate for applicants.
     Shri V.D. Sapkal h/f Shri R.A. Tambe, Advocate for respondent No.2.
     Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for State.





                                     .....


                                    CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : 01st November, 2012 ORDER:-

1. The proceeding is filed to challenge the order made

by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur District Ahmednagar on

2 Cri. Revn. Appln 38/2011

Exh. 23 in Sessions Case No. 63/2009. The application was filed

by applicants for discharge. The charge sheet is filed against

them for offences punishable under section 306, 506 read with

section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable

under section 32, 33(a), (b) of Bombay Money Lending Act.

2. The application is rejected by Sessions Court. Both

the sides are heard. Copies of papers of investigation were made

available to this Court.

3. Crime is registered on the basis of the report given by

one Smt. Arti. Deceased Anil was her husband. He committed

suicide by hanging himself in his house on 03/08/2009. It is the

case of his widow that there was some money lending transaction

between the applicants and the deceased and the applicants were

harassing the deceased due to the transaction. It is her case that

some document in respect of the land of the deceased was also

got executed in respect of this transaction by the applicants. In

the report, she has given some specific incidents which had taken

place on 30/07/2009, 01/08/2009 etc.. It is her case that in her

presence threats were given to the deceased by the applicants /

accused. Applicant No.1 is a money lender and applicant no.2 is

his servant. The applicants used to visit residential place of

3 Cri. Revn. Appln 38/2011

deceased for recovery of the principal amount and the interest

and they were harassing him. The last incident took place on

03/08/2009.

4. On 03/08/2009 at about 9.30 a.m. when the deceased

was about to leave for temple with the complainant, both the

accused came to his house. As the accused had come there, the

deceased said to the complainant that he would go to the temple

subsequently and so the complainant and her two daughters left

for temple. They returned to home at about 11.20 a.m.. At

about 12.30 p.m. the complainant noticed that the door of the

room situated on first floor was in closed condition and latch was

put on from inside. She collected neighbours and with the help of

the neighbours, the door was opened. They found that the

deceased had committed suicide by hanging himself. Initially,

A.D. was registered on the basis of report of Smt. Arti. Arti gave

report against the applicants and one more person on 11/08/2009

and the crime came to be registered for aforesaid offences.

During investigation, the statements of both the daughters of the

deceased came to be recorded. Supplementary statement of the

widow and the two daughters were also recorded. The material

collected by police shows that on 03/08/2009 when the applicants

visited house of the deceased, one of the member of the family of

4 Cri. Revn. Appln 38/2011

deceased noticed that the applicants were giving threats to the

deceased.

5. There are statements of some other persons who

include neighbours. To them also the information was given by

the family members of deceased about the harassment. Thus, at

present, there is material like the report given by the widow of the

deceased in which allegations are made against the applicants.

There are statements of the two daughters of the deceased and

there are also statements of some neighbours. It is not disputed

that Anil committed suicide by hanging himself. It is the case of

the applicant No.1 that he had given the amount of at least Rs.

1,60,000/- for purchasing the land of the deceased and the

deceased was not executing the sale deed and so the applicant

No.1 was visiting the house of the deceased. Thus, the

submission shows that the accused are not disputing that there

was some transaction and due to that the applicants were visiting

the house of the deceased.

6. It was submitted for applicant No.1 that he is money

lender and he has obtained necessary licence for doing such

business. However, it was submitted that transaction with the

deceased was not of the nature of money lending and there was

5 Cri. Revn. Appln 38/2011

simply an agreement of sale. It appears that on general stamp

paper, the agreement was written. It is the case of applicant

No.1 that possession was given to him under the agreement.

Inspite of such case, the document was not registered and no

proper stamp duty was paid on this document. There are

allegations that there was illegal money lending transaction and

when there is such allegation, the aforesaid circumstances are

relevant. Some allegations are made that applicant No.1 was

recovering interest @ 10% per month from the deceased. The

aforesaid circumstances, if they are accepted as they are, show

that the family of the deceased had seen last the deceased alive

at 9.30 a.m. and at that time the deceased was in the company of

the applicants. When they returned to home after 11.20 a.m.,

they found the dead body of the deceased and it is their case that

the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment of the

present applicant. All these circumstances are relevant in this

case.

7. The ld. advocate for the applicants submitted that

even if the allegations made against the applicants are accepted

as they are, the allegations are not sufficient to make out the case

of abetment as defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.

The ld. advocate placed reliance on following reported cases.

                            6                              Cri. Revn. Appln 38/2011


     (i)       2009 ALL MR (Cri) 3377 Bombay High Court




                                                                             

Santosh Nathumal Goenka and another Vs. State of Maharashtra.

(ii) 2007 Cri.L.J. 3343 Madhya Pradesh HighCourt (Indore Bench) Paramjeetsingh Chawala Vs. State of M.P..

In aforesaid reported cases, in view of the facts and

circumstances of the cases, the High Courts have observed that if

there was money transaction, the accused is entitled to make

demand of money and receive it.

ig It is observed that if due to

demand made by the accused, the other person commits suicide,

the act of the accused by itself will not amount to abetment within

meaning of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. In the first

case, the prosecution was quashed and in second case,

discharge was given by the High Court.

8. Reliance was placed on some more reported cases

like :-

(i) AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998 Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh, and

(ii) 2002 (2) SCC 135 Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra.

In the first case, in view of the facts of the case and the conduct of

the accused like telling the deceased 'to go and die' was held not

to be sufficient to prove "instigation" as required for the proof of

7 Cri. Revn. Appln 38/2011

abetment u/s 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Such statement had

come from the accused during quarrel. In the second case, it is

observed by the Apex Court that if the material placed before

Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which is not

explained, then only the Court will be justified in framing charge.

It is observed that some times the material may not be sufficient

to make out prima facie case. There can not be any dispute over

this proposition.

9. Copy of judgment delivered by Apex Court in Appeal

No. 1301 of 2002 (Gangula Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra

Pradesh) was produced and the attention of this Court was drawn

to para 16. It was submitted that from the conduct of the

applicant, it can not be inferred that the intention was to provoke,

incite or encourage the doing of an act like suicide. It was

submitted that mensrea can not be inferred against the accused

on the basis of aforesaid material.

10. On the other hand, the either side placed reliance on

the case law 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1331 (S.C.) (Chitresh Kumar

Chopra Vs. State) (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). At para 18 the Apex

Court has made following observations.

8 Cri. Revn. Appln 38/2011

"It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the

court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value,

disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept

as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving to the conclusion that it is not

likely to lead to a conviction."

One more submission was made for the applicants. It was

submitted that one Natwar against whom also charge sheet was

filed, is discharged by this Court by allowing Criminal Writ Petition

No. 84/2011. This Court has gone through the material to

ascertain the allegations made as against Natwar. It appears that

he was also visiting the house of the deceased but he had not

visited the house on third i.e. date of the incident.

11. The facts and circumstances of each and every case

are always different. At the time of deciding application filed for

discharge, the Court is required to consider the provisions of

Section 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is

difference between the requirement of Section 227 and 228 of

Cr.P.C.. The provision of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. shows and it is

imperative to record reasons of giving discharge. For doing so in

9 Cri. Revn. Appln 38/2011

the present case, this Court will have to observe that the family

members of the deceased can not be believed and further this

Court will be required to observe that the aforesaid circumstances

can not lead to inference that there was abetment to commit

suicide. There is one more point like delay caused in filing F.I.R..

Only due to such delay, the evidence given by the witnesses can

not be discarded if the witness is otherwise found trustworthy.

There will be other material in support of the oral evidence in view

of the circumstances discussed already. For framing charge, the

Court is required to form an opinion that there is ground for

presuming that the accused has committed that offence. The

observations made by Apex Court in the case cited for the

respondents show that, it is not necessary at this stage to

consider material with a view to arrive at a conclusion that the

material is not likely to lead to conviction. In view of the facts and

circumstances of this case, this Court holds that the Sessions

Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed

for discharge. In the result, the application stands dismissed.

( T.V. NALAWADE J. )

ts k/