Telangana High Court
Ponnuru Venkata Srihari vs State Of Telangana on 10 March, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.392 OF 2022
Between:
Ponnuru Venkata Srihari ... Petitioner/Accused No.2
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. through Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 10.03.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 392 of 2022
% Dated 10.03.2023
# Ponnuru Venkata Srihari ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. through Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Salvaji raja Shekar Rao
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri N.Prasanna Kumar for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
Criminal Appeal No.1164 of 2021
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4512 of 2019)
Dated 05.10.2021
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.392 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioner/Accused No.2 in S.C.No.250 of 2021 on the file of
Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli for the offence under Section
306 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. One E.Ramesh(deceased) was working as DLMT (District
Level Monitoring Team) in education department at Sarva Siksha
Abhiyan, Peddapalli and promoted as Sectorial Officer on
10.01.2019 and worked for one month in the said position at
Peddapalli. A1, J.Padma, GCDO (Girl Child Development Officer)
was constantly abusing him and also asked him to work as DLMT,
though he was promoted and was harassing over a period mentally
and threatened him. Three months prior to the death, the deceased
went and met this petitioner/A2, who was working as ASPD
(Additional State Project Director). On seeing the deceased, he
questioned "Nuvvena Ramesh" (are you Ramesh) and also asked
him "ikkadiki Gaddi peeka vachava" (have you come here to pluck
grass). In view of the same, the deceased allegedly felt insulted
when A1 was harassing him and also when he met this petitioner,
the petitioner humiliated him.
3. On 09.08.2019, the deceased committed suicide by drowning
in Godavari River. A hand hag was found which belonged to the
deceased and in the hand bag, a suicide note was found. In the
said suicide note, it was written that A1, who was working as GCDO
was harassing him without giving him the Sectorial Officer post
which was vacant though the deceased was eligible. A1 was
responsible for ensuring that the deceased did not get the post
though he had the requisite qualification. It is further stated in the
suicide note that nearly seven months prior to death A1 was
abusing him every day on one pretext or the other. It is further
alleged that A1 was having illicit affair with A2.
4. On the basis of such suicide note, investigation was done by
the police and charge sheet was filed alleging that both A1 and this
petitioner/A2 were responsible for abetting suicide of the deceased.
5. On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the petitioner
was working in Hyderabad and according to the suicide note, the
deceased had met him once in the Hyderabad office. Even admitting
that the petitioner asked him sarcastically as to why he had come
will not amount to abetment of suicide. In support of his
contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Geo Varghese v. The State of Rajasthan in Criminal
Appeal No.1164 of 2021 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4512 of 2019
dated 05.10.2021.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that according to the suicide note, this petitioner was
having an illegal affair with A1 and A1 was continuously harassing
the deceased over a period of seven months and when he went to
meet this petitioner, he had passed remarks for which reason of
being humiliated, the deceased had committed suicide. It clearly
amounts to an offence of abetment to commit suicide and only the
trial Court after examining witnesses can draw conclusions. At the
initial stage, it would be improper for this Court to quash the
proceedings.
7. The evidence against this petitioner is that while he was
working as ASPD, the deceased met petitioner/A2 and he
sarcastically stated whether he had come to pluck grass (ikkadiki
gaddi peeka vachava). In colloquial language this phrase is used in
an insulting manner when a person meets another without proper
reason. The said incident of deceased meeting petitioner, admittedly
happened three months prior to the suicide/death.
8. Adverse comments that were passed by the petitioner three
months prior to the deceased's suicide cannot in any manner be
said to come within the definition of abetment under Section 107 of
IPC. Section 107 of IPC reads as follows:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
--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
-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.°
9. Instigation is to goad, provoke, incite or encourage to do an
act. Further the act of engaging with one or more persons in
conspiracy and instigating another for doing of such thing is also
punishable. In the present case, A1 was working in Peddapalli,
where as the petitioner was working in Hyderabad, which places are
at a distance of nearly 200 kms. Though there is a mention that
since seven months A1 was harassing him by passing adverse
remarks and abusing him, the meeting of the deceased with this
petitioner was three months prior to the incident of committing
suicide and a solitary instance. By no stretch of imagination can it
be said that A1 and A2 engaged in a conspiracy to instigate or abet
the deceased to commit suicide.
10. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding such person in doing such thing. The act of
this petitioner in humiliating is too remote in time to the suicide
and it cannot be said that it amounts to instigating or abetting the
commission of suicide by the deceased in conspiracy with A1.
11. For the aforementioned discussion, no case is made out
against this petitioner to infer or raise a strong suspicion that this
petitioner was in any manner involved along with A1 in the process
of abetting the deceased to commit suicide.
12. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in SC
No.250 of 2021 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli,
are hereby quashed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
disposed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 10.03.2023
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.392 OF 2022
Date: 10.03.2023
kvs
