Sanjay Digambar Khedkar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3904 Bom

     revn2.16.odt                                                                                                                    1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                                                                                      
             CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2016




                                                                                     
          1. Sanjay Digambar Khedkar
             aged about 44 yrs., Occp. Labourer,




                                                                                    
             r/o Shantata Nagar, Balapur Road,
             Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola.

          2. Ramdas Dattuji Pohare




                                                                
             aged about 58 yrs., Occp. Milk business,
             r/o Deokibai Nagar, Balapur Road,
                                     
             Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola.

          3. Brijlal Gayaprasad Pali
                                    
             aged about 58 yrs., Occp. Business,
             r/o Laxmi Nagar, Dabki Road,
             Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola.

          4. Mohan Krushnarao Waghade
      


             aged about 46 yrs., Occp. Labourer,
             r/o Shantata Nagar, Balapur Road,
   



             Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola.       ::            APPLICNAT

                         .. Versus
                                   ..





                State of Maharashtra,
                through Police Station Officer,
                Police Station, Shivaji Nagar,
                Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana.                                      ::         NON-APPLICANT





     ...................................................................................................................................
                                     Mr. J. B. Gandhi, Advocate for the applicant.
                               Smt. M. H. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the non-applicant.
      ...................................................................................................................................

                                                                   CORAM :  S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 18th JULY, 2016.

O R A L J U D G M E N T O R A L J U D G M E N T

1. Heard.

2. Admit.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. By this application, the applicants have challenged order

dated 23/7/2015 rejecting their prayer for discharge from the case

and also seeking quashing of the proceedings of Sessions Trial No.80

of 2009, which is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions

Judge, Khamgaon.

5. On the basis of complaint lodged by Ratna Kailash Khodke

dated 27/01/2008, police station, Shivaji Nagar, Khamgaon, Distt.

Buldhana registered Crime No.98/2008 for the offences punishable

under Sections 504, 506, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code against these applicants. It so happened that in the night

between 23rd and 24th October, 2008 deceased Kailash, who had

visited the house of his real brother at Khamgaon and had been there

temporarily, went outside the house and jumping into a nearby well

committed suicide. Dead body of the deceased Kailash was found to

be floating on waters of the well in the morning of 24/10/2008.

There was one cloth bag, which was kept near the mouth of the well.

When police arrived at the spot and fished out the dead body and

made enquiry, this cloth bag was discovered. On opening it, one

pocket diary was found inside it. In the pocket diary it was written by

the deceased that he committed suicide because of indebtedness and

that these applicants had made his life difficult owing to their

constantly issuing threats to him. Later on, a complaint was lodged

against these applicants by Ratna Khodke, wife of the deceased, and

accordingly the aforesaid offences were registered against them. After

completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed

against these applicants.

6. When the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the

applicants filed an application seeking their discharge in terms of the

provisions of Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However,

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon was of the opinion

that there was some material showing prima facie involvement of

these applicants in the offences registered against them and, therefore,

by his order dated 23/7/2015, rejected the same. Being aggrieved by

the same, the applicants are before this Court in the revision.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the basic

ingredients of the offence of abetement to commit suicide as well as

issuance of threats have not been made out and, therefore, even if the

applicants are tried for these offences, it would be an exercise in

futility.

8. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that since there exists a

suicidal note as well as the first information report making specific

allegations against the applicants, it could be said that continuation of

the trial of the applicants would be justified and, therefore, according

to her, this revision application deserves to be dismissed.

9. On going through the charge-sheet and the allegations

made against these applicants in the first information report, I find

that there is great substance in the argument advanced by the learned

Counsel for the applicants and no merit in the argument of learned

A.P.P. for the State.

10. In order to make out the offence of abetment of suicide

(Section 306 I.P.C.), it is necessary that there is either intentional

aiding by the accused in commission of suicide or intentional

instigation for committing suicide. So far as the aspect of intentional

aiding is concerned, it is clearly absent in this case. It appears that the

case has been attempted to be made against these applicants for the

said offence of abetment of suicide only by taking resort to the first

aspect of abetment of a thing as explained in Section 107 of the Indian

Penal Code. According to the prosecution, instigation done by these

applicants is to be seen in the form of harassment given by them to the

deceased. Admittedly, the act of harassment is a demand made by

these applicants from the deceased to repay the loan amounts that

were borrowed by the deceased from these applicants on different

occasions. In the first information report, it has been alleged that the

deceased felt harassed due to frequent demands raised upon him by

these applicants about refund of their money. The first information

report admits that certain amounts were borrowed by the deceased

from each of these applicants. So, making of demand of repayment of

the borrowed sum by the creditor could not be considered as an illegal

act. It can also not be considered as instigation to a person to commit

suicide. Making of any legal demand of dues, cannot be said to be

something as amounting to instigation of an act prohibited under the

law. If a person feels harassed on account of such legal demands, then

it is his own perception having no nexus whatsoever with the making

of the demands. In order to take an act to be instigation, there has to

be something in the nature of creation of an atmosphere of

desperation, some sort of helplessness, some despondency and a

person committing suicide must feel that if he does not take such an

extreme step, there would not be any amelioration of his situation

with no other remedy being left. But, such is not the case when a

creditor makes a demand for repayment of the borrowed sum and the

debtor feels that the demand is unreasonable or illegal or premature,

as legal remedy is available to the debtor to redress his such a

grievance. There is no material on record from which it can be said

that the deceased had tried to resort to the legal remedy before he

took the decision of putting to an end to his life. Admittedly, no

complaints in the past were filed either by the deceased or his wife.

Therefore, this is not a case wherein all legal remedies were exhausted

and no solution existed for the deceased to get over the situation,

which he perceived to be disturbing and having it's origin in repeated

demands being made by the applicants. In these circumstances, I find

that even if the trial of the applicants is allowed to go on accepting all

material available on record as true, as rightly submitted by the

learned Counsel for the applicant, still it would not result in conviction

of the applicants and would be an exercise in futility in so far as it

relates to offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code.

11. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506

of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, a bare perusal of the first

information report and the statement of witnesses would show that

there has not been a single incident stated therein which points out

that any of these applicants or all of them had intentionally insulted or

provoked the deceased or any other person with a view to trigger the

breach of public peace or gave threats on life or threats on account of

injury to person or even more than that. So, these offences can not be

proved even when the evidence available on record is accepted as it is.

In my view, no purpose would be served by allowing the trial of the

applicants to go on even for these offences.

12. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow this

application.

Revision application stands allowed.

Proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 80/2009 are hereby

quashed and set aside and the applicants are discharged.

JUDGE

wwl

CERTIFICATE

"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct

copy of original signed Judgment."

Uploaded by : W.W. Lichade, P.A.

Uploaded on :21/7/2016