Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1913 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. State

2010-11-15

VINEET KOTHARI

body2010
Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.—I have heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the suicide note written by the deceased Akhilesh, which was perused by this Court and which appears to have been written in a balanced state of mind, cannot lead to abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC because the averments made in the said suicide note cannot amount to instigation by the present petitioners in any manner leading to commitment of suicide by deceased Akhilesh. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Singh vs. State of Rajasthan - 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 358, where in a fight between two brothers, one rebuked the other for the share of expenses for jointly owned well to go and die in the same well and the other said brother really committed suicide by jumping in the well and the Court held that there was no instigation or mens rea on the part of the brother, who has alleged to have instigated and charged of offence under Section 306 IPC and allowed the revision petition quashing the said charge. 3. In Sanju vs. State of M.P. - 2002 (SCC (Cri.) 1141 = RLW 2002(4) SC 551 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that word "instigate" used in Section 107 IPC denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite, however, presence of mesn rea is necessary for such instigation and in the absence of the same, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal against the judgment of High Court under Section 482 refusing quashing of charge sheet and quashed the said charge of 306 IPC. 4. In another judgment relied upon by learned counsel in the case of Sonti Rama Krishna vs. Sonti Shanti Sree - AIR 2009 SC 923 where the accused wife alleged to have openly insulted the husband by calling him ugly looking and impotent was held to be not guilty of instigation so as to fall within the ambit and scope of word "abetment" under Section 306 IPC. 5. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 5. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. & Anr. - 1995 SCC (Cri.) 943 which was a case of sexual jealousy between the two paramours of same lady and in a quarrel between the two paramours, it was held that words used by the appellant were casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people and nothing serious was expected to follow thereafter and in the circumstances the deceased committed suicide, the appellant cannot be held guilty for the charge of abetment to commit suicide. 6. In the light of the ratio of aforesaid judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel argued that in the present case, three petitioners, who were employees of Sales Tax collection contractor took the deceased to the office of contractor Om Prakash and on account of cuttings found in one of the receipts issued by the deceased Akhilesh, these persons simply told him that they cannot keep such dubious person in the job and relieved him of his duties and even paid Rs. 200/- as travelling charges on 16.4.2010 and after about 24 hours, if the deceased boarded the train and on the way committed suicide by falling from the train and cut by that, the present petitioners cannot said to have instigated him leading him to commit suicide. He also submitted that even if from tenor of the suicide note it is assumed that these three persons gave some beating to the said deceased on the previous day, there is nothing which could impute instigation on the part of said persons leading him to commit suicide and even some inference is drawn on the basis of some beating given by them, the case could fall under Section 323 IPC. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and submitted that in view of suicide note the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. Having heard the learned counsels and in view of the judgments cited at the bar and definition of word "abetment", this Court is of the view that the instigation or mens rea, which is necessary to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC is prima facie found to be absent in the present case. 8. Having heard the learned counsels and in view of the judgments cited at the bar and definition of word "abetment", this Court is of the view that the instigation or mens rea, which is necessary to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC is prima facie found to be absent in the present case. This Court has perused the suicide note and even if the averments made in the said suicide note were taken at its face value, their appears to be no instigation on the part of present petitioners to abet the deceased to commit suicide on 17.4.2010 after 24 hours of his being relieved from his duties and fare of Rs. 200 paid. The petitioners are in the business where such events could happen in normal course of business and this Court is unable to infer any malafide intention on the part of petitioners to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. I think it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. However, any observations made above are not to be taken as any expression on merit of the case by the learned trial Court. 10. Accordingly, this application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants namely Om Prakash Sharma, Jetha Ram and Nathu Singh by I.O./S.H.O. in connection with FIR No. 19/2010 P.S. GRP, Jodhpur, they shall be released on bail provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and furnishes two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned investigating Officer on the following conditions:- 1. That applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. 2. That applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the courts or to any police officer. 3. That applicants shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. 11. The petitioners shall surrender before the trial Court on the date of filing of challan and move a regular bail application.