Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 291 (KAR)

Yuvaraj v. The State of Karnataka

2015-03-13

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for quashing of the investigation and FIR in Crime No.225/2013 on the file of the Muddebihal police registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Consequently, registering the FIR before the JMFC., Court Muddebihal. 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and also learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Ishwaraj.S.Chowdapur, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. I have carefully perused the records. 3. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, a person by name Sri Kedar S/o: Dinakar Marathe, herein lodged a report at the initial stages with regard to the death of his father stating that on 15.10.2013 at about 2.30 p.m. he received an information from his mother-Megha stating that his father has committed suicide by pouring kerosene and litting fire on himself, he immediately came to Muddebihal from Bijapur and saw the dead body of his father. His mother disclosed that on that particular day at about 2.15 p.m. the complainant’s father went to attend nature’s call and thereafter he started screaming in the lavatory inside the house and thereafter there was smoke and flame emerging from the lavatory and thereafter they opened the door forcibly and found the dead body of the deceased. It is also alleged by the complainant that his father left a death note wherein it is categorically stated that the petitioner Y.V.Vadavadagi is responsible for the death of the deceased. But at the first instance it is stated by the complainant that his father might have written such death note due to some depression but he has no suspicion so far as the petitioner is concerned or any other person. Therefore, he requested the police to take appropriate action. On the basis of such information the police proceeded with the investigation by registering a UDR case. Subsequently, on 19.10.2013 the second respondent submitted another information to the police reiterating the facts of the earlier complaint adding to that after the completion of the obsequies ceremony of his father when he was discussing with his mother they came to know that the petitioner who was working as a junior advocate with the deceased has stealthily got some documents pertaining to Sy.No.129 measuring 17 acres and got decreed a suit by misrepresentation etc. and in this regard petitioner had been harassing the deceased and forcing the deceased to get a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner’s through his son for 4 acres of land, otherwise he would diminish the status of the deceased in the society etc. Being frustrated by the intensified harassment by the petitioner, on the ill-fated day, depicting the act of the petitioner in his death note, deceased committed suicide. On the basis of such allegations the police have registered a case in Crime No.225/2013 under Section 306 of IPC and continued the investigation. It appears the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is yet to be filed before the trial Court. 4. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased by way of suicide due to burn injuries, which also supported by the post mortem examination report. It is also there in the records the death note left by the deceased in which it is stated by the deceased that the accused is responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased and not the wife or the son of the deceased, it bears the signature of the deceased. During the course of investigation this was sent to the expert and the signature of the deceased was fortified by the report of the expert. But the contents of the death note marked at K2, the expert has stated, he could not give any opinion so far as the said aspect is concerned. However, the writing of the complainant was sent along with the death note and it is clarified that the death note contents were not written by the complainant. In the above said background the police have also recorded the statements of several witnesses including the clerk of the deceased in his office and they have stated to some extent with regard to the depression on the part of the deceased due to ill-treatment and harassment by the petitioner and the wife of the deceased has also stated about the reason for commission of the suicide by her husband. 5. 5. Elaborating his allegations on the above said facts and circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that at the initial stages in the UD report there are no allegations against the petitioner to show that he has at any point of time intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide and no material is there other than the death note that, there was any such ill-treatment or harassment, which was sufficient to drive a person to commit suicide. Further added that, the mere harassment or ill-treatment is not sufficient but it should be coupled with the intention of the accused that he has given such ill-treatment or harassment with an intention to drive the person to commit suicide. Therefore, such important aspects are conspicuously absent in the entire charge sheet papers and as such the petitioner is entitled to the remedy as sought for. 6. Learned HCGP equally with all force submitted that though the investigation is completed there are certain materials, if they are broadly considered at this stage, are sufficient to draw suspicion in the conduct of the petitioner when there is a specific death note is left by the deceased that the accused/petitioner is responsible for his suicide, that itself is sufficient to file the charge sheet and further the Court can look into the materials on record and appreciate the materials and take a decision at the time of framing of charges. At this stage the Court cannot consider the contradiction in one statement with other statement and the statement of the witnesses and come to any final conclusion. Therefore, at this stage, he submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2011 SC (Criminal) 806 in the case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. Therefore, at this stage, he submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2011 SC (Criminal) 806 in the case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat, has held that; “Abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC – Proof – Deceased as driver working under accused officer, allegedly, committed suicide due to harassment and insulting behavior by latter – Suicide note left by him, a rhetoric document in nature of a departmental complaint- It also suggests some mental imbalance on part of deceased which he himself describes as depression – No indication in note that accused ever intended that his driver should commit suicide – Merely because deceased had a grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide, same would not be ground to base charges under Section 306 of Criminal Proceedings are therefore liable to be quashed”. In another ruling reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the Apex Court has observed that; “under Sections 306, 107 of IPC, the proof regarding abetment of suicide – Quarrel between accused and deceased – Accused telling deceased ‘to go and die’ that itself would not constitute ingredients of ‘instigation’ – Presence of meansrea is necessary concomitant of instigation – Fact the deceased committed suicide after two days of quarrel during which said words were uttered by accused – Would show that suicide was not direct result of quarrel – Suicide note left by deceased showing that he was in great stress and depression – Statement by his wife that he was frustrated man and was in habit of drinking – Held, charge sheet framed under Section 306 against accused was liable to be quashed as ingredients of abetment were totally absent”. In another ruling reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190 in the case of S.S.Cheena Vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that; “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained”. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained”. The ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active direct or indirect act of the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option in the life and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a vulnerable position commit suicide. 8. On the other hand the learned HCGP has also very strenuously argued and cited a ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander and Another, the relevant paragraph is 31, where in the Apex Court has held that; “31. This present case is not a case where the allegations were so predominately of a civil nature that it would have eliminated criminal intent and liability. On the contrary, it is a fact and, in fact, is not even disputed that the deceased committed suicide and left a suicide note. May be, the accused are able to prove their non-involvement in inducing or creating circumstances which compelled the deceased to commit suicide but that again is a matter of trial. The ingredients of Section 306 are that a person commits suicide and somebody alone abets commission of such suicide which renders him liable for punishment. Both these ingredients appear to exist in the present case in terms of the language of Section 228 of the Code, subject to trial. The deceased committed suicide and as per the suicide note left by her and the statement of her son, the abetment by the accused cannot be ruled out at this stage, but is obviously subject to the final view that the Court may take upon trial. One very serious averment that was made in the suicide note was that the deceased was totally frustrated when the accused persons took possession of the ground floor of her property, C-224, Tagore Garden, Delhi and refused to vacate the same. One very serious averment that was made in the suicide note was that the deceased was totally frustrated when the accused persons took possession of the ground floor of her property, C-224, Tagore Garden, Delhi and refused to vacate the same. It is possible and if the Court believes the version given by the prosecution and finds that there was actual sale of property in favour of the accused, as alleged by him, in that event, the Court may acquit them of not only the offence under Section 306 IPC but under Section 107 IPC also. There appears to be some contradiction in the judgment of the High Court primarily for the reason that if charge under Section 306 is to be quashed and the accused is not be put to trial for this offence, then where would be the question of trying them for an offence of criminal trespass in terms of Section 448 IPC based on some facts, which has been permitted by the High Court”. (emphasis supplied) Looking to the above said facts and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear from the reading of the entire materials on record that the Court may not be in a position to come to a definite conclusion that there is no semblance of material even to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC. 9. After reading the entire charge sheet papers, if one can come to the tentative conclusion that facts are sufficient to create some suspicion then the Court cannot quash the entire proceedings. On the other hand the statement of the witnesses and statement of the complainant and the other materials on record should not be appreciated by the Court at the time of quashing the proceedings, but the materials available should be taken into consideration on their face value for the purpose of coming to any conclusion. When the facts are hazy and when the facts requires appreciation or evaluation then also normally the Court should not quash the proceedings. When the facts are hazy and when the facts requires appreciation or evaluation then also normally the Court should not quash the proceedings. Though in this particular case the death note is not so clear but it is evident that the deceased has specifically narrated that the petitioner is responsible for his death and how he is responsible is also based on some materials on record though stated hazily by the witnesses that there was some civil dispute between the deceased as well as petitioner in respect of some immovable property and that the petitioner was also harping upon the deceased for the purpose of getting a registered document pertaining to 4 acres of land. What are the conversation and what are the transactions that has been taken place between the petitioner and the deceased, how they were behaving with each other are all the factors to be considered in a full fledged manner. Some of the witnesses have stated that there was some dispute between the parties and whether on the basis of such dispute the deceased has committed suicide and whether the accused has done that particular act with an intention to drive the petitioner to commit suicide, all those things, in my opinion, has to be thrashed out at the time of considering the entire charge sheet by weighing the materials on record. Even for any purpose summarily also this Court is debarred from appreciating or evaluating the materials on record. However, weighing and evaluating the materials can be done by the trial Court before framing of charges because of the reason that under Section 239 or 227 of Cr.P.C. the Court has ample power even for a limited purpose to examine the materials on record. But this Court even cannot weigh the materials on record. It should be borne in mind that the High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down with regard to cases in which the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of power under this provision is based on sound principles. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyze the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such a premise arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears to the Court that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath by the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. 10. Reverting to the facts on hand, there is some discrepancy in the earlier statement of the complainant and his subsequent statement but as guided by the Hon’ble Apex Court that such contradictions or omissions with what intention the second statement was made and why the said facts are not disclosed in the earlier complaint or which facts are true, all these facts are to be considered either at the time of hearing before framing of charges or at the time of trial. Therefore, considering the contradictions or omissions and weighing the materials on record the Court cannot come to the definite conclusion then proceedings can’t be quashed. 11. Therefore, considering the contradictions or omissions and weighing the materials on record the Court cannot come to the definite conclusion then proceedings can’t be quashed. 11. When the complainant makes such an allegation that the petitioner is responsible and his conduct has driven his father to commit suicide, if no opportunity is given to explain how he has come to such a conclusion, it would amounts to acquittal of the accused at this stage itself without providing any opportunity to the complainant or the prosecution, that is not the scope of the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. While exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Court should be in a position to come to a definite conclusion that there is conclusive proof in favour of the accused to quash the proceedings without there being a trial against him. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, when some semblance of materials are placed before the Court to show that there was some dispute with regard to the landed property between the accused and the deceased and there is some material to show that the deceased committed suicide at the instance of the accused as narrated in the death note, that has to be thrashed out before the trial Court. 12. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion, that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings, at this stage, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial Court by making necessary application for his discharge, in that event, the trial Court should not be persuaded by any of the observations made herein but take its own decision according to its legal and factual perception. If the trial Court is persuaded on weighing the materials on record that the accused is entitled to be discharged, it should do so without being persuaded by any of the observations of this Court. With these observations, the petition stands dismissed.