Chattisgarh High Court
Vinay Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 December, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.1118 of 2022
Vinay Kumar Sahu S/o Shivprasad Sahu Aged About 52 Years
Presently Working As Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central
Bank Maryadit, Branch Pendra, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh. R/o Ward No.13, Barrapara, Amarpur Road, Police
Station Pendra, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station Ratanpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Non-Applicant
For Applicant: Shri Goutram Khetrapal along with
Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocates.
For Non-Applicant/State: Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Dy. G.A
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
14.12.2022
1.
This Revision has been preferred against the order dated
30.09.2022 passed by the 10 th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in
Sessions Trial No.80/2022, whereby the charge under Section 306
IPC was framed against the Applicant.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that deceased Vasant
Kumar Yadav was working as a Peon under the subordination of the
Applicant, who was posted as Supervisor and Incharge/Branch
Manager in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Branch Pendra,
District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi. It is alleged that the deceased
Vasant Kumar Yadav committed suicide on 26.12.2021 at 4 o' clock in
the morning leaving behind a suicide note stating therein that the
Petitioner had tortured and also threatened him which made him take
such an extreme step of ending his life. On such averments, FIR
No.634 of 2021 was registered at PS Ratanpur, District Bilaspur.
3. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed
under Section 306 IPC and charge was also framed for the same
Section against the Applicant by way of impugned order. Hence this
Revision.
4. Shri Khetrapal, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that
the order impugned is contrary to the well settled principles of law
and no necessary ingredients under Section 306 IPC are made out
against the present Applicant. He further submits that the Applicant is
working as a Supervisory Officer and had only advised the deceased
to attend the office without consuming alcohol as the deceased was
in the regular habit of consuming alcohol for which, he made a
complaint also to the Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative
Bank, Head Office at Bilaspur on 15.12.2021 against the deceased
vide letter No.183 and the copy of the same has also been annexed
in support of the Revision. He further submits that in the preliminary
enquiry report of the Department, it has been clearly revealed that no
harassment was made by the Applicant and the deceased himself
was responsible for not discharging his official duties in a proper
manner and a copy of the report is also annexed herewith. He placed
reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Geo Verghese vs.
State of Rajasthan and Another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC
873 and Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 628 and submits that the abetment is
lacking and therefore, the Revision may be allowed discharging the
Applicant from the charge under Section 306 IPC.
5. Per contra, Ms. Singh, learned Counsel for the State supported
the impugned order and submits that the post-mortem report reveals
that on the date of incident, the deceased had not consumed any
alcohol and the suicide note also clearly reveals that due to
harassment and torture meted out to the deceased by the Applicant,
the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide
and as such, the trial Court has properly framed the charge, which
does not call for any interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the Revision carefully.
7. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another
(supra), it was held that if prosecution was allowed to continue on the
basis of such absurd allegations, it would be difficult for every
superior officer to work and there was no intention on the part of the
Applicant to harass the deceased or to instigate him for committing
suicide and it was observed at paras-12 & 13 as under:-
"12. In order to bring out an offence
under Section 306 IPC specific abetment
as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on
the part of the accused with an intention
to bring about the suicide of the person
concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. The intention of the accused to
aid or to instigate or to abet the
deceased to commit suicide is a must for
this particular offence under Section 306
IPC. We are the clear opinion that there
is no question of there being any
material for offence under Section 306
IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called
suicide note.
13. It is absurd to even think that a
superior officer like the appellant would
intend to bring about suicide of his driver
and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact,
there is no nexus between the so-called
suicide (if at all it is one for which also
there is no material on record) and any
of the alleged acts on the part of the
appellant. There is no proximity either.
In the prosecution under Section 306
IPC, much more material is required.
The courts have to be extremely careful
as the main person is not available for
cross-examination by the appellant-
accused. Unless, therefore, there is
specific allegation and material of
definite nature (not imaginary or
inferential one), it would be hazardous to
ask the appellant-accused to face the
trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a
pleasant experience. The person like
the appellant in the present case who is
serving in a responsible post would
certainly suffer great prejudice, were he
to face prosecution on absurd
allegations of irrelevant nature. In the
similar circumstances, as reported in
Netai Dutta v. State of W.B (2005) 2
SCC 659 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 543, this
Court had quashed the proceedings
initiated against the accused."
8. In Geo Verghese vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (supra), it
has been held at para-23 as under:-
"23. What is required to constitute an
alleged abetment of suicide under
Section 306 IPC is there must be an
allegation of either direct or indirect act
of incitement to the commission of
offence of suicide and mere allegations
of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not be sufficient in
itself, unless, there are allegations of
such actions on the part of the accused
which compelled the commission of
suicide....."
9. Having considered the aforesaid principles and reverting back
to the factual matrix of the present case wherein, in the statement of
the witnesses, it has been generalized that the deceased had
informed them that the Applicant was harassing and also threatening
to implicate him in a false case. It is the solemn duty of the
Supervisory Officer/head of the Office to instill discipline in the Office,
therefore, the role played by the Applicant in advising the deceased
not to consume liquor while discharging official duty does not fall in
the ambit of harassment and would not be a ground for provoking the
deceased to commit suicide, therefore, this Court is of the opinion
that necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not made out
against the Applicant as the Applicant had in any manner, either
instigated or intentionally persuaded him to commit suicide, therefore,
without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate the
deceased, the charge framed against him under Section 306 IPC is
not sustainable, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that necessary
ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not made out against the
Applicant.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the instant Revision is
hereby allowed and the order framing charge against the Applicant
under Section 306 IPC is set aside and he is discharged from the
criminal case registered against him.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Priya.
