Gayam Venkataramana 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4429 Tel

          THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

                Criminal Petition No.6416 of 2014

ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A3 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.210 of

2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Bhadradri

Kothagudem District for the offence under Section 306 read with

34 IPC.

2. The respondent No.2/de-facto complainant lodged a report

before the Manuguru Police on 21-12-2013 at 11:00 PM stating

that on the same day at 7:00 PM the petitioners went to her

brothers rented house at Adarshnagar, Manuguru, abused him in

filthy language, insulted him and pressurized him for return of

money. The deceased stated that "if he was pressurized for money,

he would die by consuming pesticide poison". The accused

instigated the deceased to commit suicide. On that, feeling

insulted, her brother had taken drastic step to end his life,

consumed pesticide poison and fell on the ground. Immediately he

was shifted to Government Hospital, Manuguru for treatment.

While undergoing treatment he died at 9:00 PM. Basing on the said

report, police registered a case in Crime No. 285 of 2013 under

Section 306 read with 34 IPC and issued FIR. After completing

investigation they filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the above

offence. The case was taken on file against A1 to A3 by Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru, Khammam District numbered

it as PRC No.3 of 2014 and committed to the Court of Sessions.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Public Prosecutor. There is no representation for R2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners were innocent, they did not commit any offence and

there was absolutely no material to show that the petitioners

instigated or abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased.

The essential ingredients for attracting the offence under Section

306 read with 107 IPC were totally absent as per the facts of the

case. The continuation of prosecution would not result in

conviction of the petitioners. The petitioners would be subjected to

unnecessary hardship and prayed to quash the proceedings.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide on

merits.

6. Perused the record. As per the charge sheet, the deceased

promised A3 that he would provide a job in L&T Metro Rail,

Hyderabad through his contractor's nephew by name Srinivas, as

A3 studied B.Tech. On that, A1 to A3, the mother and sons

arranged an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs to the deceased for securing the

job and paid the amount in 3 installments, but as the deceased

failed to secure any job even after 2 months, came to a conclusion

that the promise made by the deceased was fake and since then

were insisting the deceased for return of their amount. A

panchayat was conducted on 27-11-2013 at Bhadrachalam and

during the panchayat, the contractor Bhaskar Rao promised that

he would arrange within 2 months. Since then A1 to A3 increased

their harassment and insisted the deceased for their amount. On

21-12-2013 at 7:00 PM, A1 to A3 went to the house of the

deceased, abused him and insulted him. On that, the deceased

stated that "if he was pressurized for money, he would die by

consuming pesticide poison", upon which the accused stated that "if he wants to die, he could die". On that the deceased took the

drastic step to end his life and consumed pesticide poison.

7. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the Police

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also would disclose the above facts.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Mohan v. State

represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police1 wherein

it was held that,

"44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained".

9. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of

Delhi)2, wherein the court opined that,

"there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern would be different from the others. Each person would have his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it would be impossible to lay down any strait jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case would have to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances."

10. He relied upon the judgment of the High Court of A.P. in

Shaik Ibrahim and others v. State of A.P.3 wherein it was held

that,

"instigation or abetment had to be understood in the context of age of the deceased, the society in which

(2011) 3 SCC 626

(2009) 16 SCC 605

2005(1) ALD (Crl) 163 (AP) he/she lived, and the social acceptance of the nature of the words uttered and the attending circumstances."

11. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra

and Ors.4, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court extracted the various

judgments on Section 306 of the IPC and reiterated that,

"there must be some positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide."

12. Thus, as seen from the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the

witnesses and the charge sheet as there is no positive act

committed by the accused to instigate or in aiding the deceased in

committing suicide and the allegation of harassment itself is not

sufficient to sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, it is

considered fit to allow the petition, quashing the proceedings

against the petitioners in S.C. No.210 of 2014 on the file of

Additinoal Senior Civil Judge Court, Bhadradri Kothagudem

District.

13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing

the proceedings in S.C. No.210 of 2014 on the file of Additional

Senior Civil Judge Court, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, against

the petitioners - A1 to A3.

______________________________ DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI Date: 16.12.2021 LSK

AIR 2021 SC 1