Home Bombay High Court Section 306 IPC Suicide Nothing to Show that Accused Instigated or Abetted to Commit Suicide, FIR Quashed [Case Law]
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 306 r/w. 34 - Abetment of suicide - Nothing to show that any of the accused instigated or abetted deceased to commit suicide - From the face value of the record, offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the applicants - first information report is liable to be quashed and set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
Date : 4/4/2018.
Criminal Application (APL) No. 789 of 2017
Sanjay & 5 Others Vs. (1) State of Maharashtra & Another
Shri R. R. Vyas, Advocate for the appellants Mrs. S. V. Kolhe, Additional Public Prosecutor for the nonapplicant no. 1 None for the nonapplicant no. 2
(Per : M. G. Giratkar, J.)
The applicants challenged the first information report registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the report by the wife of deceased that her deceased husband Eknath Ramchandra Ghurde was working as Head Master at Primary High School, Bhisi. On 1572017, her husband returned from the school. After lunch, he was sleeping. In the evening, her son Anup told her that Assistant Teachers, namely, Prakash Dhomne, Subhash Dhokne, Sanjay Gase, Gajanan Kalbande, Amol Rakhonde and Ravi Solanke who obtained some withdrawals and cash from deceased but not submitted bills of expenditure. They were not cooperating the deceased. Due to their behaviour, her husband committed suicide in the night of 1672017 by hanging. She found one chit in the pocket of her deceased husband.
2. It is submitted that the applicants not abetted deceased to commit suicide, therefore, prayed to quash the first information report (FIR) registered against them.
3. Heard learned counsel Shri Vyas for the applicants. He has pointed out decision of this Court to which one of us (B.R.
Gavai, J) is party. Learned counsel has submitted that averments in the FIR even taken as it is, then also, it does not constitute an offence of abetment to commit suicide.
4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Kolhe for the State/nonapplicant no. 1.
5. None present for nonapplicant no. 2.
6. Perused the report lodged by the nonapplicant no. 2. It is alleged in the report that the applicants taken some withdrawal and cash from deceased and not given any account, therefore, deceased hanged himself and committed suicide. It is further alleged in the report that one chit was found in the pocket of deceased in which he has stated that due to harassment of the applicants, he has committed suicide.
7. It is pertinent to note that deceased has committed misappropriation of Rs. 70,000/, therefore, letter was issued by the Block Education Officer. Deceased replied the said letter but nowhere he mentioned about the expenditure and misappropriation by the applicants. By letter dated 1572017, deceased informed the Block Education Officer that receipts of expenditure were not bogus. It is clear from the correspondence of the Block Education Officer and deceased that deceased was informed about his misconduct from time to time. He was also directed to produce receipts of expenditure etc. It was informed to the deceased by letter dated 672017 that vouchers were wrong and there was misappropriation of Rs. 70,000/.
8. In the FIR, nonapplicant no. 2 alleged that deceased left one chit making allegations against the applicants but no such chit is produced by her. On the other hand, documents produced on record show that deceased was involved in misappropriation of the government money and, therefore, possibility of committing suicide due to constant pressure on him cannot be ruled out. Nothing is on record to show that the applicants abetted deceased to commit suicide.
9. In the case of Dilip s/o Ramrao Shirasao & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. reported in 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4328, this Court has observed as under :
…. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.
….In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the socalled suicide note.
10. In the present case, nothing to show that any of the applicants instigated or abetted deceased to commit suicide. From the face value of the record, offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the applicants. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, first information report is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we are inclined to allow the application and proceed to pass the following order.
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (ii) of the Criminal Application.