Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 678 (BOM)

Anil Methaji Gedam v. State of Maharashtra

2019-03-07

M.G.GIRATKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : M.G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. The present revision is against the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by which the application for discharge filed by the applicant in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2015 vide Exh.8 came to be rejected. 2. The applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Father of deceased namely Pramod Narayan Dabhe lodged a report alleging that accused was in love with his daughter. The applicant/accused secretly performed marriage with his daughter in a room but he refused to perform marriage publicly. His daughter committed suicide because of cheating by the applicant/accused. 3. Heard Shri O.D. Kakde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused and Shri V.P. Gangane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State. 4. Shri Kakde, learned Counsel for the applicant has pointed out the judgments of this Court in the cases of Suresh Ramlu Aulwar and Datta .v. The State of Maharashtra and Mandabai (in Criminal Writ Petition No. 855 of 2013, decided on 10.10.2013) and Sachin Ramchandra Chavan .v. The Senior Police Inspector and another (in Criminal Writ Petition No. 355 of 2015 decided on 14th October, 2015). 5. The statements of witnesses are recorded by the Investigating Officer. Shri Gangane, learned APP has pointed out the statements of Prachi Manohar Parvate and Vishal Ganpat Manohar. From the perusal of those statements, it appears that the deceased told both the witnesses that the accused was avoiding to perform marriage with her publicly and as per customs of their community. 6. Offence punishable under Section 306 is in respect of abetment as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :- "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. Whether refusing to perform marriage by the accused amounts to abetment is to be decided on the face of record. None of the witnesses has stated any incident which shows direct involvement of the accused about abetment. Both these witnesses pointed out by learned APP have stated that the deceased disclosed them that accused refused to perform marriage. It was for the deceased to take proper decision. Refusal by the accused to perform marriage cannot be said to be abetment. In the case of Sachin Ramchandra Chavan .v. The Senior Police Inspector and another (cited supra), this Court has observed as under :- "It is the case of the prosecution that on 18th March, 2012 Vaishali Madhusudan Joshi lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that the present Petitioner had got acquainted with her daughter Nilekha. They had decided to get married. The marriage was scheduled to be held on 18th March, 2012. It was decided between both the families that initial ritual like betrothal ceremony would be completed in the morning and the marriage was to be performed at about 5.15 p.m. the venue of the marriage was at Shrikrupa Hall, Khandeshwar Colony, Mumbai. It is alleged that the daughter of the complainant had paid Rs.40,000/- as an advance booking to the Manager of Shrikrupa Hall. It is alleged that the hall was booked for a total sum of Rs. One Lakh. That Nilekha had asked the present Petitioner to pay the remainder of the amount i.e. Rs.60,000/- towards expenses of the hall. On 17th March, 2012, the Petitioner had allegedly visited the house of the complainant and had thrown the receipt of Rs.60,000/- on her. There was some verbal altercation between the present petitioner, Nilekha and her family members. That Nilekha was scared. According to the complainant, at about 11 p.m. the Petitioner had asked for mutton biryani. That Nilekha had been to the hotel and there, she had taken mutton biryani to the house of the present Petitioner. She was accompanied by her neighbour Vicky Dhanawade. In the intervening night of 17th and 18th March, 2012 at about 2.30 a.m., the Petitioner had allegedly called upon Nilekha and informed her that he does not wish to get married to her. He had further informed her that he is willing to get married to the daughter of his maternal uncle. In the intervening night of 17th and 18th March, 2012 at about 2.30 a.m., the Petitioner had allegedly called upon Nilekha and informed her that he does not wish to get married to her. He had further informed her that he is willing to get married to the daughter of his maternal uncle. According to the complainant, Nilekha was taken aback with shock and on 18th March, 2012 at about 7 a.m., she had committed suicide in her house by hanging on the rafter of her kitchen. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner rightly submits that the Petitioner had abetted, instigated and facilitated the commission of the suicide. In fact, the Petitioner had not even fathomed that his refusal to marry Nilekha would take such an ugly turn and that she would commit suicide. It can be said that Nilekha was hyper sensitive. The Petitioner herein had no intention that she would commit suicide or should end her life. That in these circumstances, the Petitioner cannot be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The Petitioner herein can be said to have changed his mind at the last moment, but itself it cannot be said that he had presumed that the deceased would go to such an extreme end. Hence, the Petitioner cannot be held liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code." 8. The facts in the present case and cited judgment are near about the same. The accused refused to perform the marriage with the deceased. That does not amount to any abetment. It is the choice of every person to marry with a particular person or not. Nobody can compel any person to perform marriage with particular person. Moreover, deceased could have disclosed her parents and tried for negotiations, mediation etc. Learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that she was hyper sensitive. That might be the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the applicant/accused cannot attract the offence as defined under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. In that view of the mater, Criminal Revision is allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. That might be the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the applicant/accused cannot attract the offence as defined under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. In that view of the mater, Criminal Revision is allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. Application (Exh.8) for discharge filed by the applicant in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2015 is hereby allowed. Applicant/accused is discharged for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.