Bombay High Court

Gulab Sukhlal Borse And Ors vs The Stte Of Mah on 8 October, 2024

2024:BHC-AUG:24086


                                                                 Criminal Appeal-488-2005+
                                                    -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 488 OF 2005

                 01.   Gulab s/o Sukhlal Borse,
                       Age - 45 years, Occ - at present Nil,
                       R/o. Shramsafalya Graha Nirman
                       Sanstha,Walwadi, Dhule.

                 02.   Sanjay s/o Sukhlal Borse
                       Age - 36 years, Occ - Medical Practitioner,
                       R/o. Amrali, Tal- Sindhkheda,
                       Dist - Dhule.

                 03.   Vishram s/o Pitambar Borse,
                       Age - 70 years, Occ - Agril,
                       R/o Amrali, Tal - Sindhkheda,
                       Dist - Dhule.                                 ... Appellants

                             Versus

                       The State of Maharashtra                      ... Respondent


                                            WITH
                        CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 283 OF 2005

                 Ratnamala w/o Suresh Borse
                 Age : 49 years, Occ : Household,
                 R/o Sahakar Nagar, Savedi,
                 Ahmednagar.                                          ... Petitioner
                                                               [orig. complainant]
                       versus

                 1.    Shivaji s/o Pandit Jadhav
                       Age : 38 years, Occ : Agri.,
                       R/o Borsenagar, Dhule,
                       Dist. Dhule.
                       [Cri. Revision dismissed as
                       against respondent no.1 as
                       per order dated 29.01.2013]
                                                Criminal Appeal-488-2005+
                                 -2-

2.   Dnyaneshwar Sukhlal Borse
     Age : 40 years, Occ : Agri.,
     R/o Karkampurla, Tq. Sindhkhed,
     Dist. Jalgaon.

3.   Sanjay Sukhlal Borse
     Age : 35 years, Occ : Agri.,
     R/o Amrali, Tq. Sindhkhed,
     Dist. Dhule.
     [Respondent no.3 deleted as per
     order dated 24.04.2006]

     Sukhlal Pitambar Borse,
     Age - 76 years, Occu : Agri.,
     R/o. Amrali, Tq. Sindhkhed,
     Dist. Dhule
                                       [Orig Accused No.2 added as
                                       per order dated 24.04.2006]
4.   Rajendra Vishram Borse
     Age : 42 years, Occ : Agri.,
     R/o Shivajinagar, Tq. Wada,
     Dist. Thane.

5.   Sambhaji Vishram Borse
     Age : 32 years, Occ : Agri.,
     R/o Dolkhan, Tq. Shahpur,
     Dist. Thane.
     [Revision Application is dismissed
     as against respondent nos. 5 and 7
     vide order dated 27.09.2022]

6.   Shriram Pitambar Patil (Borse)
     Age : 53 years, Occ : Agri.,
     R/o Amrali, Tq. Sindhkhed,
     Dist. Dhule.

7.   Sham Shriram Borse
     Age : 25 years, Occ : Agri.,
     R/o Chetna Garden at and Post
     Onde, Tq. Vikramkhed, Dist. Thane.
     [Revision Application is dismissed
     as against respondent nos. 5 and 7
     vide order dated 27.09.2022]
                                                 Criminal Appeal-488-2005+
                                 -3-

8.    The State of Maharashtra                      ... Respondents
                                       [ori. accused 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 to 10]

                                 .....
Mr. N. L. Chaudhari & R. S. Shinde, Advocates for Appellants.
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Z. H. Farooqui, Advocate h/f Mr. N. V. Gaware, Advocate for the
Revision Applicant.
                                  ....

                        CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                        Reserved on          : 25.09.2024
                        Pronounced on        : 08.10.2024

JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal there is challenge to judgment and order dated

27.06.2005 passed by learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge,

Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2004 convicting appellants-

original accused nos. 3, 5 and 6 for commission of offence under

section 306 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC].

PROSECUTION CASE

2. In brief, prosecution version is that, deceased Suresh Borse

worked in Government Milk Dairy, Beed. He gave hand-loan to

accused no.1 Shivaji Jadhav, i.e. his brother in law. Its repayment

was demanded, but accused no.1 avoided to repay, resulting into

quarrel. Accused nos.1 Shivaji, 2 Sukhlal, 4 Dnyaneshwar, 5 Sanjay

and 6 Vishram used to quarrel with Suresh for demanding back the Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

loan and Suresh had filed complaint with police. PW5 Ratnamala-wife

of Suresh received land by way of streedhan and said land was given

for cultivation to accused no.9 Shriram. He alone enjoyed the yield

for two years and did not give account of income-expenditure and

therefore, land was taken back for personal cultivation. In 1998,

accused nos. 2 Sukhlal, 4 Dnyaneshwar, 5 Sanjay, 6 Vishram, 8

Sambhaji and 9 Shriram obstructed cultivation by issuing threats.

They also threatened deceased that he would be foisted in a false case

and started harassing Suresh for withdrawing the complaint lodged

by him. 7 to 8 months prior to the incident in question, Suresh was

given insulting treatment and even he was beaten. When accused

Vishram, Gulab, Dnyaneshwar and Shyam outraged modesty of wife

of deceased, she lodged private complaint in the court of JMFC.

3. On 24.01.2004, accused Shukhlal, Gulab, Sanjay, Vishram and

one Ravindra paid visit to the house of Suresh at around 11.00 p.m.

and threatened to withdraw complaint lodged for commission of

offence under Section 354 of IPC. They threatened to disrupt the

marriage of daughters of Suresh and also threatened to see how he

cultivates land. Because of said threats and harassment, Suresh was

under mental pressure and he, after writing suicide note, hanged

himself on the intervening night of 24.01.2004 and 25.01.2004.

Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

4. PW5 Ratnamala, i.e. wife of deceased, lodged report with police

on the basis of which, crime was registered for offence under Sections

306, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and in all 10 accused were

chargesheeted and finally tried by learned 3 rd Adhoc Additional

Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide Sessions Case No. 131 of 2004

which culminated into conviction of accused nos. 3 Gulab, 5 Sanjay

and 6 Vishram, and rest of the accused stood acquitted by judgment

dated 27.06.2005, which is now assailed before this Court by filing

instant appeal by invoking Section 374 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure [Cr.P.C.]

EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT

5. The status and role of the prosecution witness is as under :

PW1 Krushna acted as pancha to seizure of suicide letter/chit Exhibit 53 and 54.

PW2 Deepak is the handwriting expert who issued opinion Exhibit

59.

PW3 Rakesh, staff of Government Dairy, Ahmednagar, who acted as pancha to seizure of documents vide panchanama Exhibit

65.

PW4 Vimalbai is sister of informant PW5 Ratnamala.

PW5 Ratnamala is the informant and wife of deceased.

Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

PW6 Uttam, another staff of Government Milk Dairy, Ahmednagar, who also acted as pancha to seizure of documents vide Exhibit 65.

PW7 Deepali is daughter of informant Ratnamala and deceased Suresh.

PW8     Shaligram is acquaintance of deceased.


PW9     A.P.I. Kuvar is the first Investigating Officer.

PW10 Shaikh Nisar, P.S.O. who registered crime.

PW11 P.S.I. Shaikh Anwar is the second Investigating Officer.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the appellants :

6. Pointing to above evidence, learned counsel for appellants

submitted that there is false implication. He pointed out that alleged

suicide is of the intervening night of 24.01.2004 and 25.01.2004, but

FIR is after almost more than two weeks, and is there no plausible

explanation for the delay. He pointed out that though 10 accused

were impleaded and indicted, only 3 are held guilty, that too, on the

same set of evidence.

Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

7. He would further submit that, at the outset, essential

ingredients for attracting offence of abetment to suicide are not

available in the prosecution evidence. He pointed out that important

witnesses like informant, her daughter and sister are not consistent.

He emphasized that there is said to be suicide note, but it is handed

over at a belated stage and not immediately when it was alleged to be

found. That, son of deceased, namely, Prashant, who handed it over,

has not been examined. He pointed out that mere handwriting

expert's opinion itself is not sufficient to implicate the accused when,

according to him, the contents of the suicide note do not suggest

appellants to be responsible for abetting suicide.

8. According to learned counsel, deceased was facing action

through anti-corruption department. He was worried and bothered

for the same. There is no convincing evidence that because of any

harassment or ill-treatment by appellants, he hanged himself. Learned

counsel submitted that there is solitary episode alleging visit of

appellants to the house of deceased on the night of 24.01.2004, but

except testimony of family members, it is submitted that, there is no

independent evidence. He pointed out that appellants are residents of Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

distinct places. He would submit that even if contents of the chit are

considered, according to him, it would not constitute abetment to

commit suicide or inducement to commit suicide.

9. Challenging legality of the impugned judgment, learned

counsel submitted that reasons assigned by learned trial judge for

accepting the prosecution case are not convincing and have no sound

base or foundation. Therefore, according to him, the impugned

judgment is a produce of erroneous appreciation and prays to

interfere by allowing the appeal. He seeks reliance on the decision of

this Court in Narendra Sahebrao Patil and others v. State of

Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2002 decided by this Court

on 23.01.2024].

On behalf of the respondent-State :

10. While opposing the above submissions, learned APP laid much

stress on suicide note and testimony of informant wife. He pointed

out that informant's evidence has remained intact. She has narrated

several instances in which appellants were involved in continuously

harassing her husband deceased Suresh on one or the other count. He

pointed out that she is very categorical about mental harassment at Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

the hands of accused. That, her evidence is supported by daughter

PW7 Deepali as well as evidence of her sister PW4 Vimalbai. They all

are consistent regarding role of each of the appellants. Their material

evidence has remained intact. That, suicide note was authored by

deceased and this is got confirmed by investigating machinery by

extracting services of hand writing expert, who is also examined. He

submitted that admittedly FIR was delayed, but there was reason for

delay as, according to him, family was in grief and sorrow. There was

no other reason for deceased to commit suicide. There were repeated

threats to kill, threats to implicate, due to which life of deceased was

made miserable and according to him, only because of it, deceased

hanged himself. He pointed out that, out of several accused

implicated, only present appellants are held guilty and not all and

thus, according to him, this itself indicates that there is proper

appreciation of evidence by trial court. Resultantly, for all above

reasons, he supports the conviction and prays to dismiss the appeal

for want of merits.

On behalf of the Revision Applicant :

11. Learned counsel for original complainant, who has taken

exception to the acquittal of some accused, pointed out that their role Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

was also established. They too were involved in several instances in

subjecting deceased to continuous harassment and mental torture. All

of them were responsible and they were named by informant.

However, learned trial court has not appreciated their role in proper

perspective and therefore, by way of revision, he prays to hold all

acquitted accused also guilty as like appellants-accused nos. 3, 5 and

8, and punish them .

LEGAL PRECEDENTS ON SECTION 306 IPC

12. Admittedly conviction is for offence under Sections 306 and

506 of IPC. Before attracting and applying charge under Section 306

IPC, it is bounden and statutory duty of prosecution to establish that

there was abetment, inducement, instigation to commit suicide.

Coupled with mens rea, positive role must be shown to have been

played by accused.

13. Law to the above extent is time and again dealt and discussed

in numerous judgments, including recent judgment of Kumar @ Shiva

Kumar v. State of Karnataka 2024 SCC OnLine SC 216, wherein, from

para 60 onwards, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the legal

aspect of abetment to suicide, as to what amounts to abetment as Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

dealt under Section 107 of IPC and also, after discussing previous

legal pronouncements in M. Mohan v. State (2011) 3 SCC 626;

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, Chitresh

Kumar Chopra v. State (2009) 16 SCC 605; Amalendu Pal alias

Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707; Rajesh v. State of

Haryana (2020)15 SCC 359 and State of West Bengal v. Orilal

Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, culled out a principle that, in order to prove

guilt of accused for abetment to commit suicide, prosecution has to

prove :

(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and

(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.

Referring to the case of Amalendu Pal (supra), it has been

observed in para 69 that :

Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

69. ... this Court after referring to some of the previous decisions held that it has been the consistent view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative to put an end to her life. It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable. Thereafter, this Court held as under:

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.

Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."

Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

APPRECIATION AND ANALYSIS

14. Going by the prosecution version, here, evidence of informant

PW5 Ratnamala, her daughter Deepali (PW7) and sister PW4

Vimalbai is crucial as they are family members and relatives.

Sum and substance of testimony of PW5 Ratnamala [Informant] :

15. PW5 Ratnamala deposed at Exhibit 74 that her husband Suresh

worked in Government Milk Dairy at Beed. According to her, in 1991

her husband extended hand-loan to accused Shivaji and when he

demanded repayment, it was avoided, followed by quarrel between

them. Accused Shivaji used to threatened her husband. Accused no. 2

Sukhlal, accused no.5 Sanjay, accused no.6 Vishram and accused no.4

Dnyaneshwar also quarreled with her husband for demanding money

back and so her husband filed complaint at Sindhkheda police station.

According to her, land received by her from her father, due to her

husband's government service, was given for cultivation to accused

no.9 Shriram and as he failed to give accounts of income and

expenditure, said land was taken back from him. However, accused

nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 obstructed their cultivation by giving threats to

kill and also threat to outrage her modesty. Therefore, partition was

constrained to be filed, but accused gave threats to withdraw the

same. Accused persons also insulted her husband at the time of 10 th Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

day of rituals after demise of mother-in-law, and her husband

deceased Suresh was beaten by all accused and accused Vishram,

Gulab, Dnyaneshwar and Shyam also outraged her modesty.

Therefore she lodged complaint at Sindhkheda police station and case

to that extent being pending before court of JMFC. She deposed that

whenever her husband Suresh went to Amrale, accused threatened by

saying that they would see how he cultivates land and that they

would obstruct marriage of daughters. Because of such conduct of

accused, her husband was under mental pressure. On the night of

24.01.2004, accused Sukhlal, Gulab, Sanjay Vishram and one

Ravindra paid visit to their house and pressurized for withdrawal of

proceedings under section 354 of IPC. They picked up quarrel, issued

threats and left and due to such incidence, her husband sustained

mental as well as physical torture and in anguish he hanged himself

on 25.01.2004. Her husband also wrote suicide note and therefore

she lodged report Exhibit 75.

She is subjected to extensive cross running in several pages.

Relevant and gist of her cross is only dealt and reproduced as under.

She admitted that last posting of her husband was at Beed and

she did not go to Beed but her husband used to come to Nagar on

holidays. In para 15 she answered that her husband gave hand-loan Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

to accused no.1 in her presence at Dhule in the year 1990-1991.

Quarrel by accused no.1 with her husband took place in her presence.

Accused no.1 also dispatched letters to her husband regarding such

transaction. She admitted that there are complaints from accused

against she and her husband and even they had filed complaint

against accused. She admitted that in 1994, her husband gave land

for cultivation to accused no.9 Shriram and relations with him for two

years were cordial. She denied that accused no.9 gave account of

income and expenditure. She admitted that accused no.2 Sukhalal,

accused no.4 Dnyaneshwar, accused no.5 Sanjay and accused no. 6

Vishram quarreled with them over harvesting of wheat crop.

She further admitted about not specifically mentioning in the

complaint Exhibit 75 that in 1998 all accused gathered and gave

threats to her about outraging her modesty; that, accused were giving

threats to proposed purchasers of the land; accused were issuing

threats to withdraw partition suit. She answered that she does not

remember whether there was compromise in 2001. She admitted that

her complaint is silent on the point that her husband became afraid

due to threats of accused on the count of partition suit.

In para 17 she answered that she did not specifically mentioned

in Exhibit 75 that her husband said to accused that her husband Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

served his mother, helped in marriages of sisters and not to cut him

off from mourning; that accused no.6 Vishram asked others to drive

her out threatening to commit suicide and accused no.10 Shyam and

accused no.6 Vishram pulling her. She also admitted about not

specifically mentioning in the complaint that all accused were issuing

threats to her husband whenever he used to go to village Amrale. In

para 19 she admitted that accused no.2 Sukhlal did not visit their

house on the night of 24.01.2004 and answered that it is not

mentioned in the complaint that accused came and gave threats that

they would engage one lady and falsely implicate her husband if he

comes to the village. She admitted that her husband said that on

following day they would file complaint against the accused.

In para 20 of the cross she stated that she and her husband

slept in one bedroom on 24.01.2004 and about 3.00 to 3.30 in the

night, she heard cry of her daughter and went and saw husband

hanging, Dr. Deepak was called and on his instructions, her husband

being shifted to civil hospital. She admitted that police were visiting

their house from 25.01.2004 to inspect spot, they seized nylon rope

and they were daily visiting their house for inquiry and even made

inquiry with her as well as her son. She answered that letter cum chit

written by her husband was found after two to three days of the Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

incident and after reading it, she became confident that accused are

responsible for suicide of her husband. She answered that because of

her mental condition, there was delay in filing complaint and also

admitted that none of the accused resides at Nagar.

In para 21 she answered and admitted that she does not know

whether other accused had filed anti-corruption complaint against her

husband and also denied that in November-December 2003 inquiry of

her husband was made in that regard and that on 27 th and 28th

January 2004, Dhule and Nasik ACB authorities had informed her

husband that they would come for inquiry and so her husband was

terribly afraid.

Sum and substance of testimony of PW7 Deepali [ daughter of informant] :

16. PW7 Deepali, who is daughter and was very much in the house

along with informant and deceased father, has testified at Exhibit 82

that her father served at Beed, he used to come to Nagar on holidays.

There were disputes between his father and uncles i.e. Shivaji,

Sukhlal, Vilas, Dnyaneshwar, Sanjay, Vishram, Rajendra, Sambhaji

and Shyam. According to her, her parents went to Dhule and after

two to three days, they returned back to Nagar. She noticed mental Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

condition of her father to be not good. He was seen to be under

tension. She learnt from mother that accused no.1 Shivaji quarreled

with her father on the ground of money and that he issued threats to

her father that he would see how her father comes to village,

cultivates land and how he would perform marriage of this witness

and that he would implicate her father in false case. (hearsay as there

is no interaction directly by deceased)

In para 3 she deposed that her father told that accused no.2

lodged complaint against him with ACB and picked up quarrels over

ancestral fields. As mental condition of her father was not good, they

did not send him to service station at Beed. In para 4 and 5, she

deposed that :

"On 24.01.2004, I, my father and mother were in the house in the night time and we were waiting for my brother Prashant. At about 11 in the night accused no.3 Gulab, accused no.5 Sanjay Sukhlal accused no.6 Vishram Pitambar and one Ravindra came in our house. They quarreled with my parents. (not alone deceased). They asked my father to withdraw the case u/s 354 of I.P.C. which was pending in the Court about the incident of Amrale, and also asked that we should not attend that Court for evidence. My father refused their demand. They gave abuses. They again gave threats that they would see how we would come to our Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

village and how my father would perform marriages of daughters. They also gave threat that they would not allow my father to cultivate the land. They also gave threat that they would destroy us and after abusing us they left our house.

5. We were terribly afraid of the accused. My father was also terribly afraid about the said incident. We consoled our father by pressing his hands and legs. My father was mentally depressed due to the threats of the accused. Thereafter we all went to sleep.

6. On 25.01.2004 at about 3 to 3.30 in the night, I heard cry of my sister Leena. I woke up. My mother, brother also woke up due to loud cry of my sister. We went towards kitchen. My sister was standing in the door of kitchen. My father was hanging by taking a nylon rope around his neck. .........."

In para 7 she deposed that in the night after funeral of her

father, accused Sukhlal, Sanjay, Gulab, Dnyaneshwar, Vishram and

Rajendra came and gave threats and abuses to her mother and

warned that they would see how her mother would come to village to

cultivate the land and due to threats, her mother fell ill. She further

deposed that two to three days after funeral, while she was checking

personal file of her father, letter cum chit was found mentioning that Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

he committed suicide due to trouble of father, brothers and she

identified the chit at Exhibit 54. According to her, all accused gave

trouble to her father. They gave mental and physical torture to her

father and therefore he committed suicide.

She too is subjected to extensive cross and therefore relevant

cross is reproduced as under which commences from paragraph 12

onwards:

She answered that her statement was recorded by police on

28.01.2004 and her mother gave complaint on 13 or 14 February

2004. Since 24.01.2004 till 14.02.2004 she was with her mother and

police were visiting their house for inquiry. She is unable to state

whether she found suicidal note of her father on 27.01.2004 but

admitted that before recording her statement, suicidal note was found

and she had shown it to her brother and mother. On 24.01.2004

during visit of accused, her brother was not in the house. After two to

three days, she informed him regarding visit of accused to their

house. She also answered that her father was saying that complaint

should be lodged against accused. She admitted that her parents told

about threats of accused for anti-corruption raids and she fairly

admitted that she had no detail knowledge about the dispute of land

and money between her father and accused.

Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

In para 16 following omissions are brought:

That, accused no.1 gave threat that he would see how her

father would come to the village, cultivate the land and how he

would perform her marriage and that he would be implicated in false

case; accused no.2 made complaint against her father to ACB and was

quarreling for ancestral fields; about marriages of the kids of her

father and about threat of cultivation of lands and accused abused

and threatened to destroy them; that father was mentally disturbed

due to threats of accused.

In para 20, she stated that suicidal note was found to her and

she denied stating portion marked "B" to the police to the effect that,

"we found the suicidal note", and she is unable to state how it is

appearing. Rest is all denial.

Further in para 22, she answered that she had stated to police

whatever she stated in para 7 of examination-in-chief and is unable to

state why it is not specifically mentioned in her statement. She stated

that she had not informed police in her first statement about finding

suicide note in the file of father and she volunteered to have stated it

in second statement.

Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

Sum and substance of testimony of PW4 Vimalbai [ sister of informant] :

17. PW4 sister of PW5 testified that her father purchased land for

PW4 and it was given for cultivation to accused no.9, but he did not

give income to deceased. Sukhlal (accused no.2), Vishram (accused

no.6), Shriram (accused no.9), Gulab (accused no.3), Dnyaneshwar

(accused no.4) and Sanjay (accused no.5), according to her, were

giving trouble in cultivation of land to Suresh. Deceased Suresh filed

civil suit for partition. Therefore accused gave threats saying that how

he comes to village. She came to meet her sister Ratnamala at Nagar.

At that time, accused no.1 Shivaji sent letter by post with some

documents. In that letter he gave abuses. According to her quarrel

took place between Shivaji and Suresh once at Nagar and once at

Amrale. Nobody informed Suresh about demise of his mother. On the

day of dashakriya vidhi at Amrale, accused no.3 Gulab directed

deceased Suresh to not to come to the funeral and said that they have

cut their relations. That time, when her sister questioned accused no.3

for not informing about demise, accused no.6 asked all others to drive

her sister out of the house and that time, Vishram, Gulab,

Dnyaneshwar, Shyam gave dashes to her, even pulled her sari and

outraged her modesty. Therefore her sister lodged report with

Sindhkheda Police Station. On 25.01.2004, she got phone call about Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

suicide by Suresh. In para 6 she stated that at 11.00 p.m. in the night,

Sukhlal, Vishram, Shriram, Sharad, Dhondu, Gulab, Sanjay, Ravindra

came to the house of Suresh, quarreled with her sister and accused

her for committing murder of Suresh. (informant has not stated so) In

para 7 she claims that letter written by deceased was found holding

Vishram, his sons, his father, three brothers responsible for his death

and said letter was Exhibit 54.

In Para 8 she further deposed that she learnt from Ratnamala

that before suicide, Gulab, Sanjay, Dnyaneshwar, Shriram came to her

house and threatened to withdraw case of outraging her modesty

saying that they would see how he would come to village and perform

marriages of daughters. Suresh became frightened and he suffered

mental torture and therefore he committed suicide.

In her cross para 10, she has admitted that accused who are in

service, are residing with their families at their respective service

stations and that, she came to know about partition suit from

Ratnamala and deceased Suresh. She answered that she has no

knowledge of result of that partition suit. She answered that the loan

transaction between accused no.1 Shivaji and deceased Suresh took

place prior to partition suit and that, the talk of demand of money Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

and demand for refund of loan made by deceased Suresh to accused

no.1 was in her presence at Nagar.

In para 11 of her cross, she denied remembering whether her

statement was recorded by police on 06.03.2004 and whether she had

stated before police that accused no.1 got hand-loan from deceased

Suresh and he gave threat to deceased Suresh. She further answered

that she does not remember whether she had stated before police that

accused no.1 Shivaji sent one letter giving threats to Suresh. She

admitted that police did not record statement of informant Ratnamala

in her presence.

In para 12, she answered that Ratnamala got the suicide note

after 2 to 3 days of suicide and that, Ratnamala did not show it to

her. In para 13 she answered that she does not remember whether

she had stated before police that accused Vishram asked other

accused ie. Gulab, Shyam, Dnyaneshwar to drive Ratnamala out of

the house and outraged her modesty and gave threat that they would

see how Ratnamala would cultivate her land. In para 15 she answered

that she does not remember whether she had stated before police that

accused came and gave threats to Ratnamala that they would see how

Ratnamala would cultivate at Amrale and quarreled with Ratnamala

and left Ahmednagar. She answered that she saw accused at 11.00 Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

p.m. in the night and they were in the house of Suresh for 10 to 15

minutes and that time neighbours were not present. She answered

that Prashant was present when accused gave threats to Ratnamala.

18. Apart from above evidence, in trial court, case of prosecution

also hinges on alleged letter cum suicide note Exhibit 54 which was

seized vide panchanama dated 31.01.2004 Exhibit 53. This letter is

produced by Prashant Suresh Borshe i.e. son of deceased Suresh, in

presence of two panchas conveying that his father, before committing

suicide, wrote suicide note and kept it in his personal file and it was

accordingly found.

19. Exhibit 54 is the said chit and its contents, in translated form,

are as under :

"Following persons are responsible for my suicide.

1. Vishram Pitambar and his children

2. My three brothers and father

3. Brother-in-law Shivaji

4. Shriram Pitambar and his son Shyam

Strict action be taken against all named above. Because of their terror, there is harassment to my family.

Signature

Salutation to all kinsmen. Injustice done to us may kindly be rectified and my children be taken care of."

Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

20. Therefore, panchanama Exhibit 53 is in presence of two

panchas i.e., one Prashant Wagaskar and another Krishna Babanrao

Mote (PW1). Pancha PW1 Krishna is examined at Exhibit 52 and sum

and substance of his evidence is that, Topkhana police called him and

another pancha Prashant Wagaskar at police station at 8.00 p.m. That

time Prashant Suresh Borshe was present. PI Kawar told that father of

Prashant Borshe had committed suicide and there is one letter-chit

which Prashant wanted to produce in presence of panchas. Witness

deposed that said letter was seen and read and its contents are

reproduced in the panchanama Exhibit 53.

While under cross, above pancha has stated that he knew

Prashant, i.e. son of deceased. He admitted that it is not noted in the

panchanama as to when Prashant got letter Exhibit 54 from the file of

deceased. He denied that because Prashant was his dear friend, he

cause signature over panchanama Exhibit 53.

21. Investigating machinery seems to have dispatched suicide note

Exhibit 54 along with other material Exhibit 58 purported to be in the

handwriting of deceased for examination and PW2 Deepak, who is

examined at Exhibit 56, deposed about comparing handwriting and

drawing conclusion that questioned documents Q1, Q1(s) and N1 are Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

written by one and same person i.e. Exhibits 54 and 58. He issued his

opinion vide Exhibit 59.

Above witness is subjected to cross wherein he answered that

he did not mentioned whether writings in Exhibit 54 and 58 are in ink

pen or ball pen. He admitted that there are three characteristics of

hand-writings viz. angular, curve and round handwriting. He

admitted that he has not mentioned date of examination of the

document. He admitted that mental condition of the writer is to be

considered during examination. Rest all suggestions are denied,

except admitting that he did not use ultra violate rays, and failed to

note alignment ane relative size of the writing.

ANALYSIS

22. Above is the material adduced by prosecution and is accepted

by trial Judge while recording guilt of appellants herein for offence

under Sections 306, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. This court has already, in

foregoing para, dealt with the settled legal precedents with regard to

offence under Section 306 of IPC.

23. Admitted position is that, out of in all 10 accused who faced

trial, only appellant Gulab (original accused no.3), appellant Sanjay Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

(original accused no.5) and appellant Vishram (original accused no.6)

are held guilty by the learned trial Judge. It is not in dispute that

suicide by hanging is of intervening night of 24.01.2004 and

25.01.2004 in the very house of deceased and admittedly, wife of

deceased has set law into motion by lodging report on 13.02.2004.

i.e. almost 19 days after suicide.

24. Precisely what is to be seen in this case is whether prosecution

has discharged its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that

appellants herein have abetted the alleged suicide by Suresh. The two

sets of evidence on which prosecution case hinges is evidence of wife

and daughter of deceased as well as sister of informant. Amongst all

relatives, only they are examined. It needs to be noted that son

Prashant, who allegedly handed over the alleged suicide note Exhibit

54 to police, has not been examined. It emerges from evidence of

PW7 Deepali that while going through personal file of her father, she

came across the said suicide note.

25. PW5 wife and PW7 daughter were very much in the house at

the time of alleged suicide. On carefully and meticulously going

through evidence of informant PW5 Ratnamala (wife of deceased),

she has alleged quarrel initially by accused Shivaji, who on demand of Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

repayment of hand-loan, allegedly not only refused to repay, but even

according to informant wife, he issued threats. That, he used to pick

quarrel with deceased. Then she alleged quarrel by accused Sukhlal,

Sanjay, Vishram and Dnyaneshwar for demanding money back.

Second allegation by her is that accused nos. 2 Sukhlal, 4

Dnyaneshwar, 5 Sanjay, 6 Vishram, 8 Sambhaji and 9 Shriram

obstructed cultivation of the land received by her from her father.

Third allegation is that at the time of 10 th day rituals of mother-in-

law, her husband was insulted and there was utterance in reference to

her, i.e. for outraging modesty, but such allegations are attributed to

accused Vishram, Gulab, Dnyaneshwar and Shyam. She has also

alleged beating to her husband by all accused, and then she alleged

her husband to be under mental pressure and during visit of accused

Sukhlal, Gulab, Sanjay, Vishram and Ravindra on the night of

24.01.2004 exerting pressure to withdraw proceedings under Section

354 of IPC, she has alleged that, her husband had suffered mental

and physical torture and in anguish he hanged himself.

Her cross discussed above, shows that deceased alone, by virtue

of his service, stayed at Beed whereas informant and her children

were placed at Ahmednagar and that only on holidays or weekends,

her husband used to come to Ahmednagar. She has admitted in cross Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

that there were complaints from the side of accused against herself as

well as her husband. She admitted that in her complaint, she

specifically did not mention that all accused gathered and gave

threats to outrage her modesty; that, they issued threats to withdraw

partition suit, and she also conceded and admitted in cross that her

complaint is silent on the point that her husband was afraid due to

threats of accused. Episode of quarrel and insult at the time of 10 th

day rituals of mother-in-law involving accused no.6 threatening to

commit suicide and scuffling with her is also shown to be missing

from report. She also admitted that her complaint is silent about

accused issuing threats to her husband whenever he visited Amrale.

26. Likewise, daughter of above witness, i.e. PW7 Deepali, in her

substantive evidence stated that there were disputes between her

father and uncles, whom she has named. She has not elaborated, like

her mother, the instances of threats, quarrels or episode which

allegedly took place during 10 th day ritual of her grandmother. She

merely has deposed that when her parents returned from Dhule, she

noticed that mental condition of her father was not good. Except

deposing to that extent, she has not elaborated the background.

Whatever she deposed, she claims to have learnt from her mother, but

that too only against accused Shivaji quarreling with her father on the Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

ground of money and threatening to implicate her father in false case.

Then she directly deposed about visit of accused Gulab, Sanjay,

Vishram and one Ravindra to their house on the night of 24.01.2004.

She has alleged that these persons quarreled with her parents. Her

such testimony shows that quarrel involved even her mother and not

deceased alone. She has alleged abuses but by whom and in what

form, has not been stated by her. She claims that accused persons

threatened that they would not allow her father to cultivate the land

and would create obstruction in marriages of daughters. Therefore,

according to her, her father was terribly afraid and mentally

depressed.

In cross she answered that her father, after the occurrence of

night of 24.01.2004, was saying that complaint should be filed

against the accused and she fairly admitted that she had no detail

knowledge about dispute of land and money between her father and

accused. Material omissions are brought in her cross para 16 and 20

regarding threats to see how land is cultivated and how marriages of

children would be performed and to see that deceased would be

destroyed. Para 22 of the cross also carries material omissions.

Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

27. Similarly, PW4 Vimalbai claims that accused no.2 Sukhlal, 6

Vishram, 9 Shriram, 3 Gulab, 4 Dnyaneshwar and 5 Sanjay were

giving trouble to Suresh in cultivation of land. Accused no.1 Shivaji

dispatched abusive letter. According to her, once in her presence

there was quarrel between accused Shivaji and deceased Suresh.

That, during rituals after demise of mother of Suresh, she alleges

directions by accused no.6 Vishram to other accused to drive

informant out of the house and accused Vishram, Gulab,

Dnyaneshwar and Shyam pulled her sari, of which her sister PW5

lodged report. This witness deposed that on 25.01.2004 at night,

Sukhlal, Vishram, Shriram, Sharad, Dhondu, Gulab, Sanjay and

Ravindra quarreled with her sister by visiting her house. They also

alleged murder of their brother at the hands of her sister.

However in cross, she has admitted that all accused are at

respective places of their service and she had no knowledge about the

fate of civil suit.

28. Consequently, on appreciating above evidence, there is no

evidence whatsoever suggesting harassment of such extent or creation

of such circumstances due to which deceased was left with no other

alternative but to hang himself. Four accused allegedly paid visit on Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

night of 24.01.2004, i.e. accused Sukhlal, Gulab, Sanjay and Vishram.

However, guilt of Section 306 IPC is imputed only against Gulab,

Sanjay and Vishram. In what manner they abetted suicide is not

coming on record. Alleged visit by accused persons is around 11.00

p.m. Deceased, who shared bedroom with informant, seems to have

realized suicide around 3.30 a.m. i.e. almost after four to five hours.

Daughter has admitted that after accused left, her deceased father

had expressed his intention to lodge report with police. Going by such

material, it is not a case that deceased was facing such a precarious

situation that he had no other alternative but to hang himself.

Admittedly, relations were strained but it is emerging from the

evidence of above witnesses that deceased worked at Beed and he

used to come only on holidays. It is not shown that they all resided

under one roof or jointly. In fact, relations between deceased on the

one hand, and his father and brothers on the other hand, were

strained on account of land and its cultivation, of which proceedings

were instituted. Evidence also shows that there were attempts to

compromise. Though informant expressed her ignorance, there is

suggestion to that extent. When and who all issued threats except

Shivaji, and that too was of which nature or kind of threat, has not

come on record. There is nothing to suggest that prior to 24.01.2004,

there was continuous harassment, threats or trouble of any sort at the Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

hands of appellants-accused compelling deceased to hang himself.

How these three appellants were involved in abetting, inducing or

enticing deceased to end up life is not satisfactorily coming on record.

It has not been shown that accused appellants visited house of

deceased on 24.01.2004 and subjected deceased to such harassment

with sole intention to see that Suresh hangs himself.

Consequently, in the considered opinion of this Court, in view

of the oral account of PW4, PW5 and PW7 and the manner of answers

given by them in cross, it is unjust to impute abetment to commit

suicide.

29. No doubt vide Exhibit 53, suicide note Exhibit 54 is brought on

record. However, it is pertinent to note that it is not handed over

immediately to the police in spite of PW7 finding it after 2 to 3 days

of funeral. The contents of the suicide note reproduced above are also

cryptic. Therefore, even such piece of evidence cannot be considered

as cogent piece of evidence. Mere strained relations cannot be made a

ground to hold abetment or inducement to commit suicide. It is

expected of prosecution in such cases to prove beyond reasonable

doubt that accused intended that deceased should end up his life and

with that sole intention, they harassed deceased or created such Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

circumstances that deceased was left with no other alternative but to

end up his life. As stated above, mother as well as daughter admit

that after departure of accused from their house that night, there

were talks of lodging complaint against accused. Therefore, when

recourse and alternative was available and was also given thought of,

then, it is doubtful whether accused could be held responsible.

Daughter has admitted in cross that there were threats by accused to

inform ACB authorities against deceased. Therefore, there are other

possibilities and circumstances for deceased to take the extreme step.

For said reasons, charge of Section 306 of IPC against the appellants

must fail.

30. There is also conviction under Section 506 of IPC, which

provision reads as under :

"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.- Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. - and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

or with imprisonment for a term which may extent to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

Law on the point of applicability of Section 506 is also dealt in

Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and another (2015) 7

SCC 423, Romesh Chandra Arora v. State of AIR 1960 SC 154 and

recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid

and another v. State of U.P. and others AIR 2023 SC 3784, observed

in para 27 as under :

"27. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant."

31. In the case in hand, it is noticed from the evidence of informant

PW5 Ratnamala that, in para 5, she reported occurrence taking place

in 1998, naming accused nos.2 Sukhlal, 4 Dnyaneshwar, 5 Sanjay, 6

Vishram, 8 Sambhaji and 9 Shriram entering the field and giving

threats that this witness and deceased Suresh should not enter the

field, otherwise they would kill them. The incident in question, on the Criminal Appeal-488-2005+

strength of which crime is registered is of 2004. Evidence of

Ratnamala is conspicuously silent about issuance of life threats so as

to attract charge of Section 506 IPC. Therefore, even this charge is not

proved beyond reasonable doubt.

32. Original complainant has preferred criminal revision

challenging acquittal of remaining accused persons. But after

considering the above discussed evidence, no fault can be found in

the findings recorded by trial Judge as regards to such accused.

Consequently, revision has no substance and is devoid of merits.

Hence, following order is passed :

ORDER

I. The appeal is allowed.

II. The conviction awarded to the appellants, i.e. appellant no.1 Gulab s/o Sukhlal Borse, appellant no.2 Sanjay s/o Sukhlal Borse and appellant no.3 Vishram s/o Pitambar Borse, by learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2004 under Sections 306 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC on 27.06.2005 stands quashed and set aside.