Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1346 (AP)

A. Venkat Reddy v. Ukanti Janardhan Reddy

2002-11-20

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2002
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application to quash the proceedings in S. C. No. 633 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, karimnagar. ( 2 ) ALLEGING that the petitioners abetted the suicide of U. Madhukar Reddy (the deceased), Choppadandi Police registered a case in Cr. No. 75 of 2001, and after investigation laid a charge-sheet for an offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners, which was taken on file as PRC no. 95 of 2001 by the learned Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class, karimnagar. Before the case was committed to Sessions, petitioners filed Crl. P. No. 3413 of 2002 before this Court to quash the proceedings, relying on a decision reported in V. Shankaraiah v. State o/ap. At the time of hearingof the said petitionsince the learned additional Public Prosecutor brought to my notice that the case was already committed to Sessions, by my order dated 19-9-2002 in crlp. No. 3413 of 20021 directed the learned assistant Sessions Judge to pass appropriate orders, after going through the record, as expeditiously as possible. Basing on the orders passed by me in Crl. P. No. 3413 of 2002, petitioners filed Crl. M. P. No. 108 of 2002 seeking discharge. On the said petition, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge passed the following order:"on careful perusal of the charge-sheet and 161 Cr. P. C. statements of the witnesses coupled with the report given to the police, it is found that the deceased madhukar Reddy consumed poison and. died, the witnesses have clearly spoken that the accused had threatened the deceased with dire consequences after conducting a Panchayat and due to these threats the deceased had committed suicide by writing a chit. Therefore, as per the material available on record it can be said that the death is due to threats made to the deceased by these accused. Therefore, there is sufficient material to say that there was abetment and instigation on the part of the accused to the deceased to commit suicide. I did not find any material to discharge the accused. Hence the petition is dismissed. "and framed charge under Section 306 IPC against the accused. Questioning the said order, and seeking discharge, petitioners filed this petition. I did not find any material to discharge the accused. Hence the petition is dismissed. "and framed charge under Section 306 IPC against the accused. Questioning the said order, and seeking discharge, petitioners filed this petition. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the material on record does not disclose the necessary ingredients to show that the deceased committed suicide due to the "instigation" of or "abetment" made by the petitioners, petitioners are entitled to be discharged. He placed strong reliance on the observations made by me in the order in Crlp. No. 3413 of 2002 and also the decision rendered by me in v. Shankaraiah s case (1 supra ). He also relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this court reported mpallem Denial Victor @ Victor hunter and others v. State ofa. P. , where it is held that to attract the offence under section 306 IPC, intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor fairly conceded that from the material on record there appears to be no case for framing a charge under Section 306 ipc, and contended that the petitioners are not entitled to discharge, because of their intimidation only the deceased seems to have committed suicide, as per his suicide note, 2. 1997 (1) ALT (Crl.) 124 (D. B.) (A. P.) = 1997 (1) crimes 499. and so they have to be tried atleast for the offence of intimidation. ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 09-07-2001 there was a Panchayat between the father of the deceased and one Ramireddy in connection with a land dispute, during which the petitioners acted as mediators, and seem to have given a decision in favour of Ramireddy, and against the father of the deceased, the de facto complainant. ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 09-07-2001 there was a Panchayat between the father of the deceased and one Ramireddy in connection with a land dispute, during which the petitioners acted as mediators, and seem to have given a decision in favour of Ramireddy, and against the father of the deceased, the de facto complainant. Alleging that petitioners, while acting as the mediators in the Panchayat, threatening that they would make it impossible for the parties to live in the village if they were not to abide by their decision, handed over a decision, which caused a great loss to them and so the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticide, leaving a four page suicide note, the de facto complainant gave a police report and after investigation police laid a chargesheet against the petitioners for an offence under Section 306 IPC. ( 6 ) AS observed by me in V. Sankaraiah s case (1 supra), suicide is not an offence, but attempt to and abetment of suicide. are offences under Sections 309 and 306 IPC respectively. Since it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have abetted the suicide of the deceased, it is necessary to see if petitioners abetted the suicide of the deceased. Abetment is constituted by instigating a person to commit an offence, or engaging in a conspiracy with the accused to commit the offence or by intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence. instigate means to goad or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act, which connotes some active suggestion or support or stimulation to the commission of the act (offence ). A person is said to instigate another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation of encouragement. The Supreme Court in sanju v. State o/m. P. held that mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. The allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected by the police during the investigation show that the petitioners coerced the deceased and his father to abide by their decision holding out a threat that if they were not to do so they would make it difficult for them to live in the village. The allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected by the police during the investigation show that the petitioners coerced the deceased and his father to abide by their decision holding out a threat that if they were not to do so they would make it difficult for them to live in the village. That threat cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be an instigation of the deceased to commit suicide. If it were to be instigation to commit suicide, not only the deceased, but the father of the deceased, i. e. , the de facto complainant, also would have committed suicide. Neither the averments in the FIR nor the evidence collected by the investigating officer show that the petitioners have had the mens rea to abet the suicide of the deceased. A person who feels aggrieved by the decisions of mediators in a Panchayat, wants to wriggle out of that decision, has to take necessary steps through procedure established by law. If a person aggrieved by the decision of the mediators were to commit suicide, the mediators at the Panchayat cannot be said to have instigated his suicide. ( 7 ) THE second type of abetment is to engage in a conspiracy to commit the offence . Petitioners cannot be said to have engaged in a conspiracy with the deceased for the suicide of the deceased. ( 8 ) THE third type of abetment is intentionally aiding a person to commit the offence. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have rendered any aid to the deceased to commit suicide. Admittedly they are not" the persons that supplied pesticide to the deceased for him to commit suicide by consuming it. Thus, the three types of abetment contemplated by Sec. 107 ipc are not found in the prosecution case. ( 9 ) 1 have earlier considered the three types of abetment in V. Shankaraiah s case (1 supra) and specifically referred that decision in my order in Crl. P. No. 3413 of 2002. Thus, the three types of abetment contemplated by Sec. 107 ipc are not found in the prosecution case. ( 9 ) 1 have earlier considered the three types of abetment in V. Shankaraiah s case (1 supra) and specifically referred that decision in my order in Crl. P. No. 3413 of 2002. But the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, without even taking pains to find out what are the necessary ingredients for attracting Sec. 306 ipc, and even without bestowing his thought and attention to the question whether the threats held out by the petitioners to the parties to Panchayat to abide by their decision would amount to abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC, mechanically framed a charge under Section 306 IPC. When a direction was given to the learned Assistant sessions Judge to keep in view the decision in V. Shankaraiah s case (1 supra) and go through the relevant record and pass appropriate orders, the learned Assistant sessions Judge ought to have gone through the said decision and stated as to how that decision does not apply to the facts of this case. Surprisingly the learned Assistant sessions Judge, even without referring to V. Shankaraiah s case (1 supra), framed a charge under Section 306 IPC after dismissing the petition of the petitioners, without keeping the judicial discipline that directions of superior courts are to be followed, but not ignored. ( 10 ) SINCE the evidence on record does not warrant framing of charge under Section 306 ipc, the charge framed by the learned assistant Sessions Judge under Section 306 ipc against the petitioners is quashed. ( 11 ) SINCE there is prima facie material to show that the petitioners have held out threats, petitioners have to face trial for intimidation and are not entitled to be discharged. Since offence of intimidation is not triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned assistant Sessions Judge for a second time is directed to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 228 Cr. P. C. and pass appropriate orders after going through the material on record. ( 12 ) THE Petition ordered.