Bombay High Court
Pandharinath Sakharam Mutkule vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 19 March, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:8367-DB
1
985.2023APPLN.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 985 OF 2023
Pandharinath Sakharam Mutkule
Age : 53 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Chanegaon, Post. Chikhali Dabhadi,
Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.
..APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station,
Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.
2. Krushna Chandu Mutkule
Age : 29 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Chanegaon, Post. Chikhali Dabhadi,
Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the applicant: Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke
APP for Respondent- State : Mr. A.R. Kale
Advocates for respondent No.2 : Mr.Baliram B. Shinde
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 7th JANUARY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19th MARCH, 2025024P
P
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
. Respondent No.2 in the present matter has lodged F.I.R.
bearing No.0033/2023 with Police Station, Badnapur, Dist. Jalna on
20.01.2023 in relation to the suicidal death of his brother deceased
Sharad on 13.01.2023. Respondent No.2 has alleged that the present
985.2023APPLN.odt
applicant/accused is responsible for the suicidal death of his brother
since he has abetted the same.
2. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that great-grandfather of
respondent No.2, late Namdeo Mutkule had sold 2 H 2 R i.e. 5 acres of
land to one Kaduba Pawar in the year 1978. The said Kaduba Pawar
sold the land to applicant - Pandharinath Mutkule. He claims that
although the applicant has purchased only 5 acres of land, he has taken
possession of 8 acres of land. He states that the additional 3 acres land
is illegally in possession of the applicant. The said land admeasuring 3
acres, which is illegally occupied by the applicant, belongs to
respondent No.2 and his deceased brother. As per the allegations in the
F.I.R., respondent No.2 states that he and his brother were repeatedly
requesting the applicant, who is also related to them as their uncle to
deliver the possession of the said 3 acres land to them. Respondent
No.2 states that in order to find out the exact area illegally in
possession of the applicant, measurement of the land was carried out in
December, 2022. He claims that on 02.01.2023, he had accompanied
his brother deceased Sharad with two uncles to the house of applicant
requesting to deliver possession of the said 3 acres land. He states that
the applicant behaved in a very rude and rough manner and refused to
give away possession of land illegally occupied by him. It is also alleged
that the applicant threatened to kill respondent No.2 and his brother
985.2023APPLN.odt
deceased Sharad. It is then alleged that on 12.01.2023, deceased
Sharad had been to the house of applicant again requesting to give
possession of the said three acres land and at that time, Sharad was
verbally abused and physically assaulted by the applicant. It is
mentioned in the F.I.R. that deceased Sharad informed the family
members about the said incident in the night on 12.01.2023 and that
he was deeply disturbed due to the said incident and felt insulted. He
had also allegedly expressed to the family members that he felt like
committing suicide due to the said incident. Respondent No.2 has
stated that on 13.01.2023 at around 6.30 a.m., his mother found body
of Sharad hanging from a Gulmohar tree in the agricultural land and
she immediately raised a alarm calling all the family members. The
deceased had thus committed suicide in the night intervening
12.01.2023 and 13.01.2023 by hanging.
3. On the basis of intimation given to the respondent - Police
Station, Accidental Death Case No.2/2023 was registered on
13.01.2023. The postmortem report dated 13.01.2023 confirms that
the death was due to hanging. Respondent No.2, who is brother of the
deceased lodged the F.I.R. on 20.01.2023 narrating the above facts
alleging that the applicant has caused abetment of suicide of Sharad.
4. Pursuant to the said F.I.R., respondent No.1 has conducted
985.2023APPLN.odt
investigation in the matter and has filed charge-sheet, vide Final Report
No.136/2023 on 18.07.2023 in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Badnapur, Dist. Jalna. Statement of respondent
No.2, Varsha wife of deceased, Kamalbai, mother of deceased,
Damodar, Ganesh and other family members and relatives have been
recorded during the course of investigation. The said statements are in
tune with the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No.2. It will be pertinent to
mention here that Respondent No.1 has got recorded statements of the
informant, respondent No.2, Ganesh Mutkule, Varsha Mutkule, widow
of deceased under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The
said statements of respondent No.2, brother and wife respectively of
the deceased, have not stated that the applicant had beaten or abused
the deceased when he had been to him on 12.01.2023 asking to deliver
possession of the disputed 3 acres land. Likewise, the witness Ganesh
Mutkule, who claims that after the deceased had visited house of
applicant on 12.01.2023, he had called him informing about what had
transpired at the house of applicant on 12.01.2023, however, he also
does not state that the deceased informed him that the applicant had
beaten or abused him as is mentioned in the F.I.R. and statements
under Section 161 recorded by respondent No.1.
5. The learned Magistrate has committed the case to the
learned Sessions Court and accordingly the case is pending in the Court
985.2023APPLN.odt
of learned Court Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, vide Sessions Case
No.378/2023. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge
against the applicant for offences under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 07.05.2024, vide
Exhibit-9. The charge is framed after filing of the present application. A
copy of the charge is taken on record and marked as Exhibit-A.
Surprisingly, although there is only one person arrayed as accused, the
learned Sessions Judge has also framed charge under Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that from the
allegations in the F.I.R. and other material on record, it appears that
there is a dispute between the parties with respect to possession of 3
acres of land. He however states that even it is assumed that the
applicant is in illegal possession of 3 acres land, which he did not
return to the deceased and his family, it can not be said that by not
doing so, he has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He submits
that the allegations in the F.I.R. and material gathered during the
course of investigation, particularly the statements of the witnesses are
not sufficient to register offence of abetment of suicide against the
applicant. He has also drawn attention to inconsistency in the contents
of F.I.R. and 161 statements on one hand and statements recorded
under Section 164 on the other with respect to the alleged incident that
985.2023APPLN.odt
had occurred on 12.01.2023 immediately before the suicidal death of
the deceased. He, therefore, prays that the F.I.R., Charge-Sheet and
Sessions Case deserve to be quashed.
7. As against this, learned APP Shri A.R. Kale and Advocate
Shri Baliram Shinde for respondent No.2 submit that the applicant was
illegally occupying the portion of around 3 acres of agricultural land
belonging to the deceased and his family. The family of the deceased
depended on agricultural land for its income and survival. Despite
repeated demands, the applicant did not return possession of
agricultural land wrongly occupied by him and rather threatened the
deceased and his brother respondent No.2 with dire consequences
including threat to kill. They, therefore, submitted that such
circumstances can drive a person to take drastic action of bringing an
end to his life, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to seek reliefs
sought in the present application. They contend that the applicant must
be made to face trial on the basis of material, which is sufficient for
framing charge against him for offence punishable under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code.
8. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of the
record with the able assistance of the learned counsel, we find that
there is certainly material contradictions in the contents of the F.I.R.
985.2023APPLN.odt
and 161 statements of witnesses on one side and the statement of
witnesses recorded under Section 164 on the other. Whereas, the
allegations pertaining to the meeting between deceased and
applicant/accused held on 12.01.2023 in the F.I.R. and 161 statements
are that the deceased was abused and beaten up by the
applicant/accused, under Section 164 statements of respondent No.2,
Varsha wife of the deceased and Ganesh, who claims that immediately
after meeting the applicant, deceased had called him informing about
what had transpired during the meeting, do not state that the deceased
was abused or beaten by the applicant during the course of their
meeting and conversation on 12.01.2023. However, having regard to
limited scope of present proceeding, we are of the opinion that this can
not be a ground to be agitated in the present proceeding.
9. We are however of the opinion that statements in the F.I.R.
and 161 statements even if accepted to be completely true and correct,
are grossly insufficient to make out ingredients of Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code. Mens rea is an essential element of offence under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution must prima facie
demonstrate some direct or active act on the part of the accused forcing
the deceased to commit suicide in order to make out a case under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, it appears
that the dispute in relation to possession continues from the date on
985.2023APPLN.odt
which the applicant had purchased the agricultural land from Kaduba
Pawar, who in turn purchased the same from great grand-father of the
deceased. There is no material on record to demonstrate any intent on
the part of the applicant indicating instigation to the deceased to
commit suicide. The allegations in the F.I.R. and 161 statements taken
on their face value do not remotely suggest any mens rea for
continuation of prosecution against the applicant under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Sections 323 and 504 of the
Indian Penal Code are non-cognizable. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that continuation of prosecution against the applicant for offence under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not warranted. Continuation of
the prosecution will amount to abuse of legal process. The prosecution,
therefore, deserves to be quashed. Hence, we pass the following
order :-
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) F.I.R. No.0033/2023 registered with Police Station, Badnapur,
Dist.Jalna on 20.01.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections
306, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Charge-Sheet
No.136/2023 dated 18.07.2023 and Sessions Case No.378/2023
pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna are
985.2023APPLN.odt
hereby quashed against the applicant - Pandharinath Sakharam
Mutkule.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
sga/
