Telangana High Court

G.Vijaya Lalitha vs The State Of Telangana on 26 September, 2024

          THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


              CRIMINAL PETITION No.10863 of 2023


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime

No.169 of 2023 of Kesamudram Police Station, Mahubabad

District, registered for the offences punishable under Section

306 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

'IPC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3/de

facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner

stating that the victim-mother of respondent No.3 is working

as watchman at TSWREIS Girls College at Inugurthy. Since

five years, prior to her death, the petitioner, who is the

Principal in the said college was harassing the victim on one

pretext or the other i.e., to do the work as instructed by her

instead of doing Watchman duty and abused her in filthy

language and abetting her to commit suicide. It is further

stated that due to the continuous harassment of the

SKS, J

petitioner, the victim vexed upon her life and swollen tablets

and committed suicide. Basing on the said complaint, the

Police registered a case in Crime No.169 of 2023 for the

offence punishable under Section 306 read with 511 of IPC.

Hence, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal

petition to quash the proceedings against her.

3. Heard Sri G. V. Shivaji, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri S.A. Mahadev, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is the principal in the said college. The victim was

working as Watchman in the said college on outsourcing basis

and has been continuously showing dereliction in duties.

While the victim was in night duty, 3 students of 5th class

climbed the compound wall and escaped from the institution.

The petitioner, vide memo dated 01.09.2022, reported the

same to the higher authority. He further submitted that when

the victim was instructed to attend night duties on

31.07.2023 and 01.08.2023, as the other Watchman was

SKS, J

absent, she did not attend the duties, which was a serious

disturbance in providing security to the girl students.

Therefore, petitioner reported the dereliction and negligence of

the victim in performing her duties, vide letter

Rc.No.1/Watchwoman/2023, dated 14.09.2023 and

15.09.2023 to the higher authorities i.e., Regional Coordinator

of TSWREIS Khammam Region. He further submitted that the

said complaint was made with mala fide intention and with an

ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance against the petitioner.

Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against

the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3

vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner stating that there are serious

allegations against the petitioner and due to the harassment

only, the mother of respondent No.3 committed suicide and it

is the matter which requires trial. Therefore, he prayed the

Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the

learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on

SKS, J

record, it appears that the petitioner is working as Principal in

the A.P. Social Welfare Residential School, Devarakonda,

Nalgonda and the victim, who is the mother of respondent

No.3, is working as Watchwoman in the said school. The

main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the victim was not performing her duties well, as such,

the petitioner reported the same to the higher authorities

about the dereliction and negligence of the victim. As seen

from the record, the petitioner gave memo to the Watchwoman

basing on the complaint given by the other teachers.

Therefore, it is clear that there is no abatement by the

petitioner for the death of deceased.

7. Section 306 of I.P.C, deals with abetment of suicide

which reads as under :

306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

SKS, J

8. The ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of

I.P.C, were elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

M.Arjunan Vs State 1 wherein it was observed as under :

"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC."

9. Similarly, in Ude Singh Vs State of Haryana 2 , the

Hon'ble Supreme Court expounded on the ingredients of

Section 306 of I.P.C., and the factors to be considered while

determining whether a case falls within the ambit of the said

provision. The relevant portion reads as under :

"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of

1 (2019) 3 SCC 315

2 (2019) 17 SCC 301

SKS, J

suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case."

10. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan

Singh Vs State of Punjab 3, in all crimes, mens rea has to be

established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified

under Section 107 of I.P.C, the state of mind to commit a

particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability.

In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on

record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a

guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted

the suicide of the deceased.

11. Having regard to the observations made in the above

judgments and the provision under Section 306 of I.P.C, to

constitute the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C., a person

should abet the commission of such suicide. In the present

case, to constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC there

must be abatement by the accused, but the averments in the

3 (2020) 10 SCC 200

SKS, J

complaint and as seen from the record, does not show such

abatement.

12. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the observations

made by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Prasad

Pandey Vs. State of U.P., and Another 4 . The relevant

paragraph Nos.8, 12, 13 and 14 read as under:

"8. The fact that the complainant Smt. Tara Devi wife of the petitioner is alive, is not disputed, therefore, issuance of notice to Smt. Tara Devi was dispensed with, as the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his contention to the maintainability of offence punishable under S. 306 IPC or 306/511 IPC only.

12. Section 306 IPC reads as under:--

"Abetment of suicide.-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

13. As mentioned above, it is admitted case of the

parties that Smt. Tara Devi had not committed any

suicide and is still alive. Therefore, there is no

question of making out any offence punishable

under S. 306 IPC against the petitioner.

2002 SCC OnLine All 1634

SKS, J

14. The fact that offence punishable under S. 306

IPC was not made out, was accepted by the learned

Sessions Judge, but he went a step further and

observed that it is clear from the statement of

mother of Smt. Tara Devi and other witnesses

during investigation that in an attempt to commit

suicide from the cruel act or behaviour of the

revisionist, Smt. Tara Devi jumped into Saryu river

but was saved. Therefore, offence under S. 306 IPC

read with 511 IPC cannot be ruled out."

13. In the case on hand also, the mother of respondent No.2

has not committed any suicide. Therefore, there is no question

of offence under Section 306 of IPC. Further, Section 511 IPC

deals with punishment for attempting to commit offences

punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.

Section 511 IPC reads as under:--

"Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with (imprisonment for life) or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case maybe, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment

SKS, J

provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."

14. Reverting back to the facts of the case on hand, there are

no other specific set of allegations against the petitioners to prove

the offence under Section 511 of IPC. Further, as there is no

suicide, Section 306 of IPC is also not applicable. In addition, it is

apparent to note that even otherwise, the facts of the case do not

constitute offence under Section 511 of IPC. Therefore, the

ingredients in the complaint or in the charge sheet do not

constitute the offence alleged against the petitioner and the

proceedings against her are liable to be quashed.

15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.169 of 2023 of

Kesamudram Police Station, Mahubabad District, are hereby