Pramod Kumar Panda vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 6 March, 2026

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

AFR        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTA
                      CRLREV No.401 of 2025
  Pramod Kumar Panda                          ....            Petitioner
                                             Mr. S.N. B. Ray, Advocate

                                  -Versus-

  State of Odisha and another                  ....   Opposite Parties
                                                    Ms. B. Dash, ASC
                  CORAM:
                  JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
                  DATE OF HEARING:21.11.2025
                 DATE OF JUDGMENT:06.03.2026
      1.

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2025 passed in connection with C.T. Case No.96 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput, whereby, an application dated 21st September, 2022 moved by him demanding discharge from the alleged offences was rejected on the grounds inter alia that such decision is legally untenable and hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside in the interest of justice.

2. As made to reveal from the record, the petitioner and other accused persons are alleged of having committed offences punishable under Section 306 and 120-B read with 34 IPC with regard to an incident, for which, a report was lodged on 9th December, 2019 alleging therein that they are responsible for having abetted the death of the deceased, namely, late husband of the informant. In fact, the deceased committed suicide as revealed from the FIR at Annexure-1 series. The reason behind the death is attributed to the petitioner and co-accused persons.

According to the informant, the co-accused persons conspired against the deceased, who at last committed suicide by hanging. The details of the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased are described in the FIR. The names of the accused persons, who allegedly tortured the deceased, have been named therein. After the alleged incident was reported, Koraput Town P.S. Case No.319 dated 9th December, 2019 was registered under Sections 306 read with 34 IPC. The chargesheet was filed for the alleged offences besides under Section 120-B IPC against the accused persons including the petitioner. As per the chargesheet dated 17th February, 2020, the accused persons combinedly harassed the deceased and it continued for six years and finally, he committed suicide. The individual role played by each of the accused persons has been revealed in the chargesheet. In fact, the chargesheet was filed keeping the investigation open as some other accused persons could not be arrested and also awaiting receipt of expert evidence. The petitioner like the other accused persons alleged of having played a part in the death of the deceased, hence, he is chargesheeted. After the chargesheet was filed, the petitioner moved the application seeking discharge but it was denied vide Annexure-2 with a decision of the learned court below dated 3rd February, 2025 and on the premise that at the time of framing of charge, it was not required to evaluate the evidence so as to reach at a conclusion whether the case is to end in conviction or acquittal and the materials on record are sufficient to frame the charge against him as well. Being aggrieved of, the petitioner has filed the revision.

3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in CRLMC No.1176 of 2020 disposed of on 9th July, 2021 but while allowing withdrawal of the same, he was granted the liberty to raise all such defence at the time of framing of charge for its consideration in accordance with law.

4. Heard Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.

5. The impugned order at Annexure-2 has been challenged on the following grounds, such as, (i) the order dated 3rd February, 20205 under challenge is illegal, perverse and contrary to the materials on record; (ii) the learned court below committed material illegality and improperly exercised its jurisdiction while denying discharge of the petitioner and as such, there has been a glaring miscarriage of justice; (iii) though the prosecution has not furnished sufficient materials in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the learned court below in a casual and whimsical manner rejected the plea of discharge, hence, the impugned order dated 3 rd February, 2025 cannot be sustained in law; (iv) the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that in the FIR, the names of the other accused persons have been mentioned and not the petitioner and out of them, the names of four were deleted instead he was included in the chargesheet without any basis and evidence, hence, there is gross illegality in not considering the same, while dealing with the application for discharge; (v) the learned court below could not have denied discharge of the petitioner when there is a suicide note left by the deceased and as such, there has been non-application of judicial mind and thus, the

impugned order at Annexure-2 is liable to be quashed; (vi) the learned court below wrongly interpreted the statements of the informant and other witnesses, who are from the family of the deceased, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as none of them implicated the petitioner alleging him to be responsible for the incident or him ever harassed the informant's wife and when the cause of suicide was the result of mental harassment allegedly attributed to other accused persons; and (vii) the evidence on record rather revealed the involvement of the co- accused persons and hence, the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2025 deserves to be nullified.

6. Perused the case diary and other relevant records including the statements of the informant and others besides the post- mortem report dated 8th December, 2019 which reveals that the death of the deceased due to Asphyxia and venous congestion. The accused persons have been chargesheeted under the alleged offences for having abetted the death of the deceased by conspiring together. According to the petitioner, he has not been named by the informant nor any evidence has been received during investigation to prove and establish that a case under Section 306 read with Section 120-B IPC is prima facie made out as against him.

7. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the names of the accused persons, who allegedly tortured the deceased have been revealed and because of that, he said to have lost his mental balance and finally, committed suicide. It is further submitted that neither in the FIR nor in the suicide note, the name of the petitioner finds place. Rather, the FIR

bears the names of seven persons, who had allegedly blackmailed the deceased and not a single word has been whispered against the petitioner and only the allegation against him is that he had called the deceased over phone shortly before the latter's death and under such circumstances, it is contended that the learned court below should have exonerated him with a discharge. The further submission is that the investigation of the police revealed that the deceased was previously working as a teacher in a school situate within the limits of the DEO, Koraput and due to his sincerity and hard work, he was deputed to the office of the DEO, Koraput and was looking after the day-to-day administrative work related to Odisha Adarsa Vidyalaya since last six years. The chargesheet revealed how the other employees of the office were jealous towards the deceased and instances when he was subjected to harassment, hence, Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when no role has been played by the petitioner and that apart, none of the ingredients of the offences are proved to exist, it was for the learned court below to discharge him. As to the request of the deceased for a transfer, Mr. Ray, learned counsel contends that if that was the cause of harassment, as is alleged, the petitioner was not the Authority to consider it which is being carried out as per the transfer policy of the Education Department, Government of Odisha and for the said purpose, a Committee has been constituted at the district level led by the District Collector as its Chairman. With the above contention, Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde Vrs. State of Maharashtra and another 2024 (261) AIC 225

(SC); Geo Varghese Vrs. The State of Rajasthan and another 2021(2) O.J.R.762(SC); M. Arjunan Vrs. State represented by its Inspector of Police 2019(1) O.J.R.164(SC); and Murali @ Muralidharan and another Vrs. State of Kerala and another 2024(263) AIC 776 (Ker. H.C.). The element of abetment is conspicuously absent vis-à- vis the petitioner on a reading of the FIR and the connected materials filed along with the chargesheet and therefore, according to Mr. Ray, learned counsel, the final submission is that the impugned order declining discharge requested by him suffers from legal infirmity.

8. On the contrary, Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State submits that evidence has been collected during investigation and filing of the chargesheet dated 17th February, 2020 and on a subjective satisfaction, the local police has reached at a conclusion regarding the involvement of the petitioner along with the others detailing therein, the manner, in which, the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment, harassment for a considerable period leading till the very last. The further submission of Ms. Dash, learned ASC is that abetment in the death of the deceased is prima facie established from the materials on record and hence, the learned court below did not commit any error or illegality in rejecting the application demanding his discharge. Ms. Dash, learned ASC would further submit that the grounds upon which the petitioner requests for discharge and whether he played any role in the conspiracy as against the chargesheet dated 17th February, 2020 filed, it shall have to be gone into during trial and hence,

learned court below did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned order i.e. Annexure-2, hence, it is to be upheld.

9. On a reading of the materials on record, it is made to suggest that there has been disclosure made by the deceased at times that he was being subjected to harassment at the office. In the suicide note, the deceased revealed that seven of the employees of the office of the DEO and DCP had been harassing him for quite some time. But nowhere, there is any indication regarding the petitioner being a part of such mischief. The Court finds that the deceased was made to work and spend for the DEO, who by claiming that he was under constant pressure from outside, took advantage of the situation. But in so far as, the other events unfolded with specific allegation made against the co-accused persons, it is suggested that he allegedly received harassment and was blackmailed in the office of the DEO and that his request for transfer was not timely considered. It is also suggested from the record that the deceased had requested the DEO to resolve the dispute as the involved employees of the office and outsiders had managed to remove an important file and were blackmailing him. The Court considering entirety of the evidence collected during investigation is to find out and ascertain whether the petitioner has had a role in the death of the deceased with any such conspiracy hatched to hold that the same is sufficient for his trial.

10. In Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde (supra), the Apex Court in absence of any proximate link between the marital dispute between the deceased and the accused and the former committing suicide and that the latter having not played any

active role in that regard held and concluded that the application for discharge by him should be allowed. A decision in Amalendu Pal Vrs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 was referred to therein while considering the discharge of the accused and in the above decision, it was concluded that the cases of abetment of suicide must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide and merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive act proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, a conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. In Geo Varghese (supra), a case of abetment of suicide, the Apex Court as against the backdrop of facts that the accused, a teacher, having reprimanded a student on account of indiscipline whether would tantamount to provoking the latter to commit suicide held and concluded that any act in discharge of moral or legal duty without their being any circumstances to even remotely indicate that there was any intention to abet the commission of suicide, no mens rea can be attributed. In M. Arjunan (supra), the Apex Court observed that insult to the deceased with abusive language by itself does not constitute abetment of suicide as there should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide and unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, he cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC. Similarly, in Murali @ Muralidharan (supra) the Kerala High Court concluded that filing of the complaint against the deceased cannot be the basis to claim that there is an abetment of suicide by the accused and

therein, a final report was submitted and the same did not indicate that with the complaint, the accused had intended that the deceased should commit suicide and in absence of any such material indicating intention on the part of the accused to instigate the deceased to commit suicide, no case under Section 306 IPC can be made out and while finally reaching at such a conclusion, quashed the criminal proceeding initiated.

11. According to the Court, harassment of an employee may constitute abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC only if there is direct or indirect, active, incitement or instigation that leaves the deceased with no choice but to commit suicide. Merely, harassment, work pressure or a suicide note is not sufficient for conviction as there must be a proof of intent (mens rea) and proximate cause. The key elements of Section 306 IPC are that the actions of the employer must be such that they goad, urge or provoke the employee, who takes his own life; the harassment must be directly linked and closely preceding the act of suicide; and the situation created must be so severe that the employee feels no other alternative existed. It is no doubt true that at times work place pressure can cause distress. But any such pressure in the work front does not automatically constitute abetment when an employee is pushed to a corner or feels depressed or distressed unless it crosses the line into intense harassment or bullying. If an employee is hypersensitive and acts in a way not expected of an ordinary person, it cannot be considered abetment though it depends on the facts of the case involved. Where an employee is driven to commit suicide because of work place

harassment, legal actions are often brought under the sweep of Section 306 IPC.

12. The issue of employer liability in cases of employee's suicide on account of work place stress and related incident, the Apex Court in Nipun Aneja and others Vrs. State of UP 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091 laid down the principles to be followed to determine the culpability wherein the quashing of the criminal proceeding was declined by Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). In course of analysing the facts of the case, the Apex Court in the decision (supra) listed the following issues for consideration, such as, (i) did the situation was unbearable for the deceased to commit suicide as the only escape? (ii) whether the accused exploited the deceased emotionally as he was vulnerable by making him feel worthless or undeserving of life leading him to commit suicide? (iii) is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out? And (iv) making false allegations damaging reputation of the deceased and pushing him to commit suicide due to public humiliation and loss of dignity has happened with him. On the aforesaid issues of the Apex Court noted that ingredients to constitute an offence of abetment for suicide would stand fulfilled only if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving him with no option but to commit suicide. An earlier decision in Ude Singh and others Vrs. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301 was referred to therein where it was held that in order to convict an accused under

Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability and observed that in cases of alleged abetment, there must be a proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. It is also observed therein that instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act and if the deceased who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide, but on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC.

13. In Netai Dutta Vrs. State of West Bengal (2005) 2 SCC 659, the Apex Court while considering the case of abetment to suicide found that the name of the accused was mentioned in the suicide note but there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby he was alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased, it was held and concluded therein that there is no case that the accused played any part or role in any such conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by the deceased. In the aforesaid decision, it has been held that a mere fact of suicide should not be taken into consideration but the nature of the offence, the accusation and correct principles of law governing abetment of

suicide should be applied. In the above case laws, the Apex Court also emphasized that actions leading to suicide must demonstrate direct or indirect incitement. On a reading of the above decisions, the conclusion is that work place conflicts even if they involve stress or humiliation do not automatically equate to abetment of suicide unless there is prima facie evidence indicating an intention to drive an individual to take his own life and this distinction is crucial as it protects individuals from unwarranted criminal prosecution.

14. In the case at hand, the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR nor in the suicide note of the deceased. From the chargesheet at Annexure-1 series, the Court finds that conspiracy has been alleged against all including the petitioner. What specific role was played by the petitioner is not revealed therein. The deceased had disclosed before others regarding the harassment and blackmail, he was subjected to by other accused persons and not the petitioner. The chargesheet and connected materials though reveal that the deceased was working under the petitioner and was expecting a transfer but it did not materialize. It is alleged that the deceased was looking after day-to-day expenses of the petitioner taking advantage of the situation prevailing by then. Is it a ground sufficient to involve the petitioner alleging him to be equally responsible with co-accused persons in the death of the deceased? Whether the evidence on record is enough to claim that the petitioner had a conspiracy with the requisite intension to drive the deceased to commit suicide? In view of the discussions held hereinbefore, direct or indirect act of incitement/instigation is

necessary to rope in someone on a charge of abetment of suicide. A positive act is necessarily to exist before considering the role in the abetment. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the deceased was made to overwork and had to spend for the petitioner, who was by then posted as the DEO and it was in anticipation of protection to him or for a transfer to any nearby school or to the school where he was earlier posted, in the humble view of the Court, is not sufficient to hold that he was a party to the harassment and it was in collusion with other accused persons. The mischief committed by the accused persons other than the petitioner are revealed from the record and if it was for them that the deceased committed suicide, in absence of connivance with the involvement of the petitioner in such act of mischief, it would be unjustified to allege conspiracy for an offence of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC. It might be that the petitioner was not in a position to help the deceased to come out of the troubled waters at the time of distress and when he was surrounded by other accused persons allegedly harassing and blackmailing him for whatever reasons as was revealed at the end of the investigation, it would be incorrect to attribute to any kind of bad intention against him especially to hold that any such intention was to force or compel the deceased to end his life. Considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court and highlighted upon hereinbefore, the Court is of the conclusion that the petitioner ought not to have been chargesheeted under Section 306 IPC alleging conspiracy with the co-accused persons. The Court is of the above conclusion for the reason that the other named employees of

the DEO office and outsiders alleged to have contributed in the death of the deceased but there is not any direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner in the alleged mischief which resulted in his untimely death. In other words, a case of abetment of suicide of the deceased against the petitioner is not made out at all. It is not alleged anywhere that the petitioner was a party to the mental harassment caused to the deceased. The disappearance of documents from the office of the DEO and alleged blackmail by the employees and such other acts which proved fatal and led to the death of the deceased cannot involve the petitioner as he was no part of it or played any role therein and the Court is also of the view that any such transfer which was expected from him having not taken place could hardly be a ground to hold that it was having a link to the commission of suicide. As it is made to understand, during the time when the deceased was in the office of the DEO, he was not in good terms with some of the employees and it does happens at times for certain reason and therefore, any such allegation of abetment of suicide as to be examined keeping in view of the acts and omission of such employees who are alleged of having committed the mischief. So far as, the other accused persons are concerned, there has been specific allegation against them in the FIR and even the deceased disclosed their names in the suicide note but nowhere, the petitioner has been named. Merely on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with the claim that the deceased was unhappy or allegedly harassed by the petitioner for not considering his transfer or taking advantage of the situation wherein he was at the relevant

point of time is not sufficient to hold that a case under Section 306 IPC is prima facie made out. Finally to conclude, there has to have a direct or indirect link and proximate nexus to the death of the deceased, who though received a phone call shortly before his death and it was from the petitioner, that by itself cannot be ground to allege that he was also responsible like others and therefore, it has to be held that the learned court below erred in denying discharge rejecting his application dated 21st September, 2022 and hence, the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2025 deserves to be set aside.

15. Accordingly, it is ordered.

16. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 3 rd February, 2025 in C.T. Case No.96 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koraput, is hereby set aside directing discharge of the petitioner forthwith.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

Rojina

Designation: Junior Stenographer