Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 623 (AP)

BALAGONI BALARAJ GOUD v. STATE OF A. P.

2007-07-06

K.C.BHANU

body2007
( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners A-1 and A-2 under Section 482 cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings in PRC no. 4 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at l. B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, which was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. ( 2 ) IT is alleged by the prosecution that the deceased No. 1 Kumar Goud is a native of ghanapur village and residing at Ramangar, vidyanagar for last 15 years along with his family. A-1 Balraj Goud and A-2 Venkatesh goud are the Excise Contractors and native of annojiguda village. Ghatkeswar Mandal and both are residing at Hyderabad city. The deceased Kumar Goud had been working under Balraj Goud for the last 15 years as a Supervisor on toddy compounds. In past elections of Gram Panchayat held on 29-08-2006 Smt. Laxmi Bai who is the mother-in-law of Kumar Goud contested as Sarpanch against Lavanya who is the close relative of a-1 and A-2. Both of them lost their elections and a third one Saritha of Pocharam village won as sarpanch. A-2 picked up a quarrel with l. W. 4, who is thefather-in-law of Kumar Goud insulted and beat him. The deceased Kumar goud, son in lawand Shanker Goud younger brother of Narsimha Goud stopped working with A-1 and A-2 for last one month due to which they incurred loss in their business because of which A-1 and A-2 threatened the deceased Kumar Goud frequently on telephone that he and his family members would be done to death unless he did not join them in their toddy business. On 15-09-2006 A-2 again threatened the deceased Kumar Goud on telephone that he and his family members would be killed unless he did not join with their business. Thus the deceased Kumar Goud disgusted with his life due to frequent threatening calls from disgusted with his life due to frequent threatening calls from A-1 and a-2, decided to commit suicide along with the family members. Thus the deceased Kumar Goud disgusted with his life due to frequent threatening calls from disgusted with his life due to frequent threatening calls from A-1 and a-2, decided to commit suicide along with the family members. Accordingly on 15-09-2006 the deceased left his house with his own car a. P. 09-1305 along with his wife Rajeshwari, daughter Laxmi Nikita and son Manjunath goud and went to the outskirts of Ghanapur where he shot his son, daughter and wife and also shot himself with a license revolver, as a result, Kumar Goud and his son died on the way to hospital while Rajeswari and daughter laxmi Nikita sustained bullet injuries which are of grievous in nature. It is clear that the deceased out of mental agony and torture at the hands of the accused had decided to end himself and also his family members and resorted to this act of firing himself and his family members. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken as true and correct, they do not make out prima facie case of abetment, that the deceased appear to have felt insulted if the information that his wife suffering from HIV positive may damage his image in the society, committed suicide and fired at his family members and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has to prima facieshow that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. To prove the offence under Section 306 IPC there must be abetment. What is abetment is defined under section 107 IPC which is as follows: "107 Abetment of a thing:- A person abets in doing of a thing, who-Firstly-lnstigates 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-lntentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, in doing of that thing. Explanation 2 to Section 107 IPC says that whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. Explanation 2 to Section 107 IPC says that whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel forthe petitioners relied on a decision reported in Sanju Alia Sanjay singh Sengarv. State of M. P. wherein it was held as follows: "even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased to go and die, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. " ( 6 ) HE also relied on another decision reported in Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of m. P. and another, wherein it was held as follows: "at the time of framing of charge, the trial court thought it appropriate to associate the appellant herein as an accused because of the words he uttered to the deceased. We think that just on the basis of that utterance the Court of session was in error in summoning the appellant to face trial. In the first place it is difficult, in thefacts and circumstances, to come to even a prima facie view that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. Besides the deceased had plenty of time of weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant. " ( 7 ) HE also relied on another decision reported in Bura Manohar v. State of A. P. wherein it was held as follows: "the case of the prosecution in this case is that due to the acts of the petitioner, the deceased felt humiliated and committed suicide. " ( 7 ) HE also relied on another decision reported in Bura Manohar v. State of A. P. wherein it was held as follows: "the case of the prosecution in this case is that due to the acts of the petitioner, the deceased felt humiliated and committed suicide. Act causing humiliation may be the offence, but if there is no material on record to show that there was 'abetment' as defined in section 107 IPC for the deceased committing suicide, a charge under section 306 IPC cannot be framed against the accused. In this case since there is no material on record to show that the petitioner committed any act of 'abetment' as defined in Section 107 IPC for the deceased committed suicide, petitioner cannot be charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC. " ( 8 ) BECAUSEOFTHETHREATENING given by the accused that they would kill wife of Kumar goud and his children, he shot his wife-Rajeswari,son-Man|unath Goudanddaughter-Laxmi Nikita with revolver as a result, Kumar goud and his son Manjunath Goud died whereas two others were undergoing treatment in the hospital. The doctors who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased appear to have died as a result of rifle fire injury. It is stated that a-1 and A-2 are the Excise Contractors and both are residing at Hyderabad. Kumar Goud was working under A-1 for the last 15 years as Supervisor on toddy compounds. In past elections of Gram Panchayat held on 29-08-2006 Smt. Laxmi Bai who is the mother-in-law of Kumar Goud contested as Sarpanch against Lavanya who is the close relative of a-1 and A-2. Both of them lost their elections and a third one Saritha of Pocharam village won as sarpanch. A-2 picked up a quarrel with lw. 4, who is the father-in-law of Kumar Goud insulted and beat him. Therefore, the deceased kumar Goud stopped working under A-1 and a-2 for the last one month due to which, they incurred loss in their business. Therefore, A-1 and A-2 threatened the deceased Kumar Goud frequently on telephone that he and his family members would be done to death unless he did not join them in their toddy business. On 15-09-2006 A-2 again threatened the deceased kumar Goud on telephone that he and his family members would be killed unless he did not join with their business. On 15-09-2006 A-2 again threatened the deceased kumar Goud on telephone that he and his family members would be killed unless he did not join with their business. Thus the deceased kumar Goud disgusted with his life due to frequent threatening calls from A-1 and A-2, decided to commit suicide along with the family members. Accordingly on 15-09-2006 the deceased left his house with his own car a. P. 09-1305 along with his wife Rajeshwari, daughter Laxmi Nikita and son Manjunath goud and went to the outskirts of Chanapur where he shot his son, daughter and wife and also shot himself with a license revolver. So even if the allegations are taken as true and correct, They would at best amount to threatening by A-1 and A-2 to the deceased to come and join in their business. It is not the case of instigating the deceased to commit suicide or aiding the deceased to commit suicide. It is not in dispute before this Court that wife of the deceased was suffering from hiv positive as seen from the summary discharge. A suicide note said to have been written by both wife and husband was seized. As seen from the charge sheet the joint suicide not written by the deceased Kumar goud and his wife Rajeswari is that they have decided to die and that all the bodies of their four should be burnt together. Therefore, the allegations do not made out prima facie case against the present petitioners. The deceased no. 1 appearto bef rustrated man because his wife was suffering from HIV positive. The ingredients of abetment are totally absent in the charge sheet for the offence under section 306 IPC. Even the allegations of threatening given by A-1 and A-2 to the deceased Kumar Goud is accepted, they were not enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those threatening words were used so that the deceased would come and join in duties as supervisor and the said act does not reflect requisite mens rea. Therefore, they do not make out prima facie offence under Section 306 IPC. In the absence of any prima facie case, the proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of Court. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in PRC no. Therefore, they do not make out prima facie offence under Section 306 IPC. In the absence of any prima facie case, the proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of Court. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in PRC no. 4 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L. B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. .