Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 827 (AP)

Ramayanam Chinnarangadu v. State

2022-09-01

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short, 'Cr.P.C.'] by the petitioner seeking regular bail in Crime No. 80 of 2022 of Singanamala Police Station, Ananthapuramu District registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner has developed illegal intimacy with the deceased and on coming to know the same, on 21.07.2022 the husband of the deceased left her at her paternal house along with her daughter and son and conducted a panchayat with the father of the deceased and being unsuccessful in the said panchayat he returned to his house along with the deceased and children. The deceased being vexed with her life and on 24.07.2022 at about 11 a.m. she went along with her daughter to the Singanamala village water tank and jumped in the tank along with her daughter and both died. Basing on the report of the mother of the deceased, the above crime was registered. 3. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds, contended that there is no prima facie of Section 306 IPC attributed against the petitioner, even if the complaint is taken on its face value. He further contended that substantial part of the investigation is already completed, accordingly, prayed to consider bail to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that though the ingredients of Section 306 IPC may not found place but if the conduct is taken into consideration the inference of Section 306 IPC may be taken for consideration and in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Reena vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2020 Crl. LJ 4890 wherein at para 23 it is held that '23. The present case is not the one where the petitioner had by her acts or omissions or by a continuous course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred.' 6. LJ 4890 wherein at para 23 it is held that '23. The present case is not the one where the petitioner had by her acts or omissions or by a continuous course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred.' 6. He further contended that substantial part of the investigation is completed, however, he stated that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may threaten the deceased's family, influence the witnesses and may not co-operate with the investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 7. A perusal of the complaint prima facie discloses that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not found. For better appreciation, Section 306 IPC is extracted below: '306. Abetment of suicide-if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.' Thus, the said provision makes it clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish: (i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an 'abetment' for commission of the crime. 8. An abetment involved mental process of instigating the person or intentionally aiding the person for doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, the said person cannot be compelled to face a trial. (Criminal Application (Apl) No. 547 of 2017 the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur). 'Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 of IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative, but to commit suicide. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable' (M. Mohan v. State of Tamilnadu 2011 (3) SCC 626 ) 9. In the present case on hand, the question of cause of suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses and in case of suicide mere allegation of harassment would not be sufficient unless such action on the part of the accused which compelled the person to commit suicide is made out. 10. The judgment relied by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As the petitioner is languishing in jail since one month and substantial part of the investigation is completed, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, duly taking the apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration, on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing self bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prohibition and Excise Cases Court, Ananthapuramu in connection with Crime No. 80 of 2022 of Singanamala Police Station, Ananthapuramu District. (ii) On such release, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Singanamala Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, till filing of the charge sheet; (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation. (iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation. (iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation. Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation of the bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate application for such cancellation. It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the findings in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering bail in the above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.