Dikhil vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 2412 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
 FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1944
                   CRL.MC NO. 4405 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 321/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY- CRIME NO.452/2014 OF
               KELAKAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

          DIKHIL,
          AGED 29 YEARS
          S/O.CHANDRN,
          NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          KANNICHAR ASHRAM, AYOTHUMCHAL.
          BY ADVS.
          BALU TOM
          SHRI. BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
          SRI.BONNY BENNY


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

          STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY IT'S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.


          PP SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN



THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC 4405/2019
                                            2




                          BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
                         ...........................................
                             Crl.M.C.No.4405 of 2019
                            .....................................
                   Dated this the 24th day of February, 2023

                                          ORDER

Petitioner is the 3rd accused in S.C.No.321/2019 on the files of

the Additional and Sessions Court-IV, Thalassery. The said case

arose from Crime No.452/2014 of Kelakam Police Station. The

offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 306 r/w

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. According to the prosecution, between 9 a.m. on 20.08.2014

and 10 a.m. on 21.08.2014, one Pavithran committed suicide

on account of the harassment meted out to him by the accused

and thereby he committed the offences as alleged.

3. Sri.Bejoy Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that, even if the entire prosecution case is assumed

to be correct, the same would not make out an offence under

Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner. It was further

submitted that all the witnesses refer to one 'Nikhil' while the

petitioner's name is shown as Dikhil and, therefore, the said CRL.MC 4405/2019

distinction itself is sufficient to disprove the prosecution case

against the petitioner. It was further pointed out that even in

the alleged suicide note, which is treated as one of the

significant circumstances against the petitioner, the name is

mentioned as Nikhil and, therefore, petitioner cannot be roped

in as an accused. Apart from the above, the learned counsel

for the petitioner contended that, neither the alleged suicide

note nor any of the statements given by the witnesses or other

circumstances brought out during the investigation, would

reveal a case of abetment of suicide. The learned counsel

submitted that the entire prosecution is, therefore, liable to be

quashed.

4. Sri.Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other

hand, contended that the alphabetical difference between

'Nikhil' and 'Dikhil' is not substantial and the same cannot be

a reason to quash the entire proceedings, that too, by invoking

jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was further

submitted that, petitioner is in fact known as 'Nikhil' and that

his identity can be proved during the evidence stage, and CRL.MC 4405/2019

therefore the proceedings ought not to be quashed. Learned

Public Prosecutor further submitted that whether the conduct of

the petitioner and the other accused had abetted the

commission of suicide or not, is a matter which can be decided

only after trial and since there are disputed question of fact,

which requires adjudication, this Court should not invoke the

inherent jurisdiction.

5. Petitioner is arrayed as the 3rd accused and is indicted for the

offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC. The

abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC, which reads as

follows:

Sec.107 Abetment of a thing.

A person abets the doing of a thing, who--

First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

CRL.MC 4405/2019

6. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had aided the

propagation of rumors and false allegations against the

deceased, and also instigated the girls of a tribal colony to file

complaints before the child line and tribal offices and prompted

them to give false statements against the deceased. The said

conduct had mentally traumatized the deceased, which led him

to commit suicide.

7. A reading of Section 107 of IPC reveals that in order to abet

the commission of a thing, the person must either instigate or

engage in the doing of that thing or intentionally aids by any

act or illegal omission to the doing of that thing. Legally,

instigating or commissioning suicide or engaging in the

commission of suicide or aiding in the commission of suicide

requires an overt act or omission, the consequences of which

would result in suicide. A mere raising of an allegation or

permitting somebody else to make an allegation cannot

constitute the offence of abetment.

8. In legal parlance concept of abetment stands on a different

footing than what is understood in lay terms. CRL.MC 4405/2019

9. Having regard to the nature of statements brought out during

the investigation and the other circumstances, I am of the view

that even if it is assumed that the petitioner is the same as

'Nikhil' still an offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out

as the petitioner cannot be said to have abetted the commission

of suicide of the deceased Pavithran.

10. In the above view of the matter, the proceedings against

the petitioner in S.C.No.321/2019 on the files of the Additional

and Sessions Court-IV, Thalassery; is an abuse of the process of

the court and the same is liable to be quashed. Ordered

accordingly.

The Crl.M.C.is allowed as above.

sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/25/02/2023 CRL.MC 4405/2019

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4405/2019

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE SUICIDE NOTE.

ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R. F.I.S AND CHARGE SHEET IN CR.NO.452/14, ON THE FILE OF COURT OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KUTHUPARAMBA.

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF F.I.R., COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST PAVITHRAN (DECEASED).

ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2015 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1959/2015 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

TRUE COPY