Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 45 (AP)

Anisetty Venkata Subba Rao v. State

2003-01-09

DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM

body2003
DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed the petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings in P. R-C. No. 4 of 2000 on the file of Mandal executive Magistrate, Arakuvalley as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Paderu sub-Division, Paderu laid charge-sheet against the petitioner and two others for offences under Section 306 IPC and under section 3 (2) (v) of SC and ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 in Crime No. 26 of 2000 of Arakuvalley Police Station. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that the deceased Janni rama Rao was working as Asst. Executive engineer in Tribal Welfare Department at arakuvailey and he was staying in a rental housing quarters. ITDA in Quarter No. A/5. Janni Prakash Rao was also staying with the deceased to help in works. Janni Rama Rao was doing Baski road for formation of road and laying of metal and gravel. In the proceedings issued by the Project Officer, i. T. D. A. , the work was estimated at rs. 3. 00 lakhs which was approved by the dy. Executive Engineer. On verification of cheques in the Dy. Executive Engineer s office, the cheques issued by him to Asst. Executive Engineer were from 23-11-98 to 23-3-99 for total amount of Rs. 28,75,000/ -. A sum of Rs. 26,50,000/- was given to the deceased Janni Rama Rao and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was given to chandra Rao and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to ajay Kumar. The Dy. Executive Engineer used to issue cheques to Asst. Executive engineer. The Work Inspector Murthy came to know that the labour payment and hire charges of road roller was not paid by the first deceased due to non-availability of amounts. The Asst. Executive Engineer was not able to ask advance amounts from the dy. Executive Engineer. The Asst. Executive engineer felt unhappy mentally. Smt. Lakshmi, wife of the Asst. Executive Engineer suspected that he developed illicit intimacy with one servant maid and there was a quarrel. On 18-6-2000 there was a quarrel. The Dy. Executive Engineer issued the cheques within four months without verifying the works which is against the procedure. As per the suicidal letter written by the deceased his wife died first and thereafter he also died. Executive Engineer suspected that he developed illicit intimacy with one servant maid and there was a quarrel. On 18-6-2000 there was a quarrel. The Dy. Executive Engineer issued the cheques within four months without verifying the works which is against the procedure. As per the suicidal letter written by the deceased his wife died first and thereafter he also died. It was due to harassment caused by "eenadu" press reporter Srinu who is A-1 and the pressure of dy. Executive Engineer, who is A-2 and executive Engineer, who is A-3. On the report, a case was registered and after investigation, the charge-sheet was laid by Sub-Divisional police Officer, Paderu Sub-Division, Paderu. ( 3 ) THE petitioner who is A-2 filed the petition contending that the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC or under section 3 (2) (v) of SC and ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 are not made out and therefore the proceedings under P. R. C. 4 of 2000 on the file of Mandal Executive magistrate are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 5 ) THE counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge-sheet does not discloses the offence under Section 306 IPC. Unless the prosecution is able to prove that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide, the offence is not made out. ( 6 ) SECTION 107 IPC defines abetment as follows:"section 107: Abetment of a thing:- a person abets the doing of a thing, who first - Instigates any person to do that thing; or, secondly - 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 thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. " ( 7 ) THE prosecution has to prove that the accused instigated the deceased by illegal omission or by misrepresentation which resulted in the commission of suicide. I have gone through the contents of the charge- sheet. The deceased due to mental agony committed suicide. There is no mention that the accused instigated or did any positive act so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. I have gone through the contents of the charge- sheet. The deceased due to mental agony committed suicide. There is no mention that the accused instigated or did any positive act so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The charge-sheet does not disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 306 ipc and therefore the accused has not committed any offence under Section 306 ipc. ( 8 ) FURTHER the accused alleged to have committed an offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also. To prove the said offence there must be evidence that the accused committed an offence under Indian Penal Code against a person knowing that such person is member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, but no such averment is made out from the charge-sheet and further the accused has not committed any offence under Section 306 ipc. R is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has not followed Rule 7 of SC and ST (Prevention of atrocities) Rules, 1995. The learned counsel relied on a decision reported in Viswanadhula chitti Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh where under it is held that Rule 7 has to be interpreted as mandatory in nature and investigation conducted by Sub-Inspector of police suffers from inherent defect in complying with the mandatory procedural safeguard resulting in prejudice to accused and hence the trial is vitiated. In the instant case the Sub Divisional Police Officer has not investigated the case though at the time of filing of the charge-sheet he verified the investigation and laid charge-sheet. Verifying the investigation done, by the Sub-Divisional police Officer cannot be termed as investigation unless the investigation is done by himself. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in e. Seshaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh. Where in it is held that verification of investigation cannot be equated with investigation and the proceedings are vitiated. In the light of the above decisions, the investigation is vitiated and therefore proceedings cannot be continued. ( 9 ) FOR the above said reasons, I come to the conclusion that the offence under section 306 IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v) of sc and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out against the accused and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) FOR the above said reasons, I come to the conclusion that the offence under section 306 IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v) of sc and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out against the accused and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. ( 10 ) FOR the above said reasons, the petition is allowed and the proceedings against accused in P. R. C. No. 4 of 2000 on the file of mandal Executive Magistrate, Arakuvalley is quashed.