Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 120 (ORI)

Susama Sethi @ Susama Sethy v. State of Orissa

2018-01-29

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. Heard Mr. B.K. Parida-2, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. Smurtiranjan Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. This leave petition under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who is the widow of the deceased Prahallad Sethy for grant for leave to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2015 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar passed in Crl. Tr. No.23/124 of 2014 in acquitting of the opposite party no.2 Saroj Kumar Pradhan of the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the deceased was serving as a Multi Task Service (MTS) in the office of Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Central, Bhubaneswar located at I.R.C. village, Nayapalli. He committed suicide by hanging himself in a ceiling fan in a room of his office after bolting the door from inside before the start of the office on 15.10.2012. When the staff of the office came, they detected the body hanging through the window glass of the room. The head of the office namely, Dr. P.K. Rath submitted a report regarding unnatural death of the deceased before Inspector in charge, Nayapalli police station and on basing on such report, Nayapalli P.S.U.D. Case No.60 dated 15.10.2012 was registered and enquiry was taken up by Asst. Sub-inspector of police. During course of inquiry, the dead body was brought down from its hanging position and inquest was held as per inquest report Ext.2. The inquiry officer found a suicidal note (Ext.1) from the shirt pocket of the deceased which was seized under seizure list Ext.4. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The suicidal note indicated that the opposite party no.2 was responsible for the suicide of the deceased and accordingly, the A.S.I. of police lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of such suicidal note and the Inspector in charge of Nayapalli police station registered Nayapalli P.S. Case No.289 dated 15.10.2012 under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party no.2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 23.02.2013 against the opposite party no.2 under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 23.02.2013 against the opposite party no.2 under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The defence plea is that the deceased was over burdened under loan pressure for which he had lost his mental balance and was remaining in a drunken condition and he had a suicidal tendency and though he attempted to commit suicide on different occasion but due to timely treatment, he survived. It is the further defence plea that the suicidal note is a manufactured document which was created only to entangle the opposite party no.2 falsely in the case. 5. Out of the twelve witnesses examined by the prosecution during trial, P.W.1 is the wife, P.W.7 is the younger brother, P.W.5 is the cousin son-in-law and P.W.12 is the brother-in-law of the deceased respectively. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 were the staffs of the office where the deceased was posted at the time of his death. P.W.8 and P.W.10 are the havildar and constable respectively at Nayapalli police station, P.W.9 is the informant-cum-inquiring officer and P.W.11 is the investigating officer. 6. Though the opposite party no.2 did not examine any witness in support of his defence plea but proved some documents which were marked as Exts.A, B and C, out of which Ext.A consisted of twenty four sheets relating to the outstanding loan dues of the opposite party no.2 from different banks. Learned trial Court formulated the following points for consideration of the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code:- (i) Whether the death of Prahallad Sethi in his office at I.R.C. village, Nayapalli on dtd. 15.10.2012 was a suicide through hanging? (ii) Whether the writings made in the alleged suicidal note vide Ext.1 is the own handwriting of the deceased Prahallad Sethi? (iii) Whether Prahallad Sethi had committed suicide after keeping that suicidal note vide Ext.1 in his shirt pocket? (iv) Whether the alleged suicidal note vide Ext.1 was seized from the shirt pocket of the deceased by the A.S.I. Bichitrananda Sethi on dtd. 15.10.2012 at the time of holding inquest over his dead body as per seizure list vide Ext.4? (iii) Whether Prahallad Sethi had committed suicide after keeping that suicidal note vide Ext.1 in his shirt pocket? (iv) Whether the alleged suicidal note vide Ext.1 was seized from the shirt pocket of the deceased by the A.S.I. Bichitrananda Sethi on dtd. 15.10.2012 at the time of holding inquest over his dead body as per seizure list vide Ext.4? (v) Whether the implications/writings made against the accused in the alleged suicidal note vide Ext.1 are fulfilling the ingredients of section 107 of the I.P.C. as per law for making the accused liable U/s.306 of the I.P.C. i.e. abetment of suicide of the deceased Prahallad Sethy?” 7. Learned trial Court while discussing whether it is a case of suicide or not, arrived at a finding that the death of Prahallad Sethy in his office at I.R.C. village, Nayapalli on 15.10.2012 was a suicide through hanging. 8. So far as the second point is concerned, the learned trial Court has been pleased to hold that if the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 12 will be read after exclusion of their contradictions with the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.11 then it can easily be held that there is no sufficient material on record on behalf of the prosecution to establish that the writings made in the alleged suicidal note vide Ext.1 is the own hand writing of the deceased Prahallad Sethy. 9. Learned trial Court also discussed the third and forth points and came to hold that the evidence of the P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 regarding the breaking open of the door of the room by the police i.e. A.S.I. B.N. Sethi (P.W.9) and holding inquest over the dead body there in that room after untying the ligature has been contradicted by P.W.9 himself and one of the brother-in-law of the deceased i.e. P.W.12. It is further held that there are ample contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12 and the contents of Exts.1, 2, 4 and 7 regarding the manner of entering into the spot room, finding out of the alleged suicidal note with date, time and place of seizure thereof, then at this juncture, it cannot at all safely be concluded that, Prahallad Sethi had committed suicide after keeping that suicidal note vide Ext.1 in his shirt pocket and that, the alleged suicidal note vide Ext.1 was seized from the shirt pocket of the deceased by the A.S.I. Bichitrananda Sethi (P.W.9) on dated 15.10.2012 at the time of holding inquest over his dead body through seizure list vide Ext.4. 10. The learned trial Court discussed the fifth point and came to hold that if the alleged harassment to the deceased by the accused indicated in the suicidal note will be taken in toto as it is, without delving into its cross-examination part, still then, the said amount of harassment to the deceased indicated in Ext.1 was not of such a degree leaving no other option to the deceased except to commit suicide. Merely because a person like the deceased had a grudge against his superior staff like the accused and committed suicide on account of that grudge, the same cannot be a proper allegation for abetment of suicide as per law. The learned trial Court further held that even if the prosecution case basing upon the suicidal note as stated vide Ext.1 will be taken in toto, still then the ingredients of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. the ingredients of abetment are not fulfilled/satisfied for the reasons in order to fasten criminal liability on the accused under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has observed that it has come through the evidence of investigating officer that the deceased had taken huge amount of loan from different banks, to which, he was not able to clear and for that reason, he was suffering from mental depression and he had attempted to commit suicide again and again prior to the incident and he was also admitted and treated at Capital Hospital. 11. 11. The learned trial Court accepted the defence plea that the cause of commission of suicide by the deceased Prahallad Sethy was out of her own accord by losing his mental balance due to pressure of loan on him having suicidal tendency with him which finds support from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned trial Court further held that the prosecution has not been able to establish through legally admissible evidence that the alleged suicidal note vide Ext.1 was by the own handwriting of the deceased and that, the same was kept in the shirt pocket of the deceased prior to commission of suicide and that the same was found by the P.W.9 at the time of holding of inquest over his dead body and that it was seized by P.W.9 on 15.10.2012 at the spot room immediately after holding of inquest through seizure list vide Ext.4 and it was further held that the implications made in the alleged suicidal note vide Ext.1 itself are not making out the ingredients of abatement as envisaged under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code for making out the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 supported the impugned judgment and contended that the learned trial Court after formulating the points, discussed the evidence on record carefully and it is a well-reasoned judgment. 13. After going through the impugned judgment, it appears that not only the learned trial Court has formulated the points for establishing the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code but has discussed the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record carefully and came to a finding that the ingredients of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted and accordingly, acquitted the opposite party no.2. 14. Where the accused by his continued course of conduct creates circumstances under which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, the instigation or intentional aiding may be inferred. It is not enough if the acts of accused caused persuasion in the mind of the deceased to commit suicide. The clear mens rea to commit the offence must exist. It is not enough if the acts of accused caused persuasion in the mind of the deceased to commit suicide. The clear mens rea to commit the offence must exist. In some cases, there may be several reasons for creating great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased which resulted in the commission of suicide. One of such reason may be due to some overt act committed by the accused at some point of time but unless there is proximity and nexus between the conduct or behavior of the accused with that of suicide committed by the deceased, it would not be proper to convict an accused under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Law is well settled as held in case of Babu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1983 SC 308 that in appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court unless the conclusions are not possible. If the finding reached by the trial Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable, the appellate Court should not disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material on the record because the trial Judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is not weakened by his acquittal. The appellate Court, therefore, should be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial Court and if two views are reasonably possible on the evidence on the record, it is not expected to interfere simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by it. 16. In view of the finding of the learned trial Court after a thorough analysis of the evidence and in absence of any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, I am not inclined to grant leave to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal. 17. Accordingly the CRLLP petition stands dismissed.