Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 818 (TS)

S. K. Sharma v. State of Telangana

2024-09-30

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2024
ORDER : E.V. VENUGOPAL, J. Heard Sri Pavan Reddy, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Saksham Gogia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent. 2. Challenge in this criminal revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C, is to the order dated 07.06.2024 passed in Crl.MP No.13 of 2023 in SC No.102 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar wherein and whereunder the prayer of the petitioners/accused for their discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was rejected. 3. SC No.102 of 2022 on the file of the trial Court was registered basing on Crime No.21 of 2020 of Railway Police Station, Mahabubnagar, registered in pursuance of death of one D.Venkat Reddy, a Railway Contractor. The brief facts that germane for registration of the said case are that on 29.02.2020 at 08.30 a.m. the Station House Officer, Railway Police Station, Mahaboobnagar, upon receiving a death message from C.Mahender, Station Master, South Central Railway, Mahaboobnagar about finding an unknown male dead body between rail-track at KM No.137/5-7, Deverkadra Railway Station Yard, registered Crime No.21 of 2020 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.PC and subsequently the section of law was altered to Section 306 IPC while implicating the petitioners, who are Deputy Chief Engineer and CPW1 respectively of South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division alleging that they have harassed and abetted the deceased for committing suicide. Further, during the investigation, they collected a diary of the year 2019 wherein a suicide note is found, made by the deceased, stating that on 22.02.2020, at Maganoor Contractor Camp, when the deceased came to the meeting lately in drunken condition, the 1 st petitioner, in front of everyone including his younger brother D.Mahender Reddy, scolded the deceased in filthy language and he repeated such scolding on 28.02.2020 and also on several occasions when he saw the deceased and that the 2 nd petitioner also troubled the deceased in many ways and due to their such harassment and troubles, he committed suicide. Accordingly, the police after concluding the investigation laid charge- sheet against the petitioners alleging that due to their abetment and harassment the deceased committed suicide. 4. Accordingly, the police after concluding the investigation laid charge- sheet against the petitioners alleging that due to their abetment and harassment the deceased committed suicide. 4. During the course of proceedings before the trial Court, the petitioners filed Crl.MP No.13 of 2023 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking their enlargement contending that they being the Railway officials in their official capacity discharged their duties strictly in accordance with the rules and without any stigma in their service and that they have no acquaintance with the deceased and they had no occasion either to talk with him or abusing him in filthy language and that they were falsely implicated in the present case without there being any involvement or essential ingredients like intentional aiding and active complicity as envisaged under Section 107 IPC or without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. 5. The trial Court holding that the petitioner did not deny their supervision of execution of contract works of formation of new broad-gauge Railway line from Jaklar to Krishna for 36 KM entrusted to the brother of deceased Mahender Reddy and the statement of brother of deceased recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. shows that the petitioners are the supervising and certifying authorities with regard to the work entrusted under contract and the statements of other witnesses viz. Kodali Srinivas and Maggari Venu reveal that the deceased supervised the work at the field and the petitioners used to abuse the deceased in front of labour, and accordingly, prima-facie allegations are levelled against the petitioners and they have to be decided upon full-fledged trial, dismissed the said application. 6. Aggrieved by the said findings of the trial Court, the present criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioners mainly contending that the trial Court, without considering the fact that the supervision of execution of work and monitoring its progress in order to maintain quality and timely execution were the responsibilities of the petitioners in view of their official position, has erroneously dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge. Further, the witnesses examined on the date of finding the body of the deceased i.e. on 29.02.2020 did not speak anything against the petitioners and after collecting the suicide note, the witnesses have changed their version. FSL Report revealed traces of alcohol inside the body of deceased. Further, the witnesses examined on the date of finding the body of the deceased i.e. on 29.02.2020 did not speak anything against the petitioners and after collecting the suicide note, the witnesses have changed their version. FSL Report revealed traces of alcohol inside the body of deceased. The said fact fortifies the version of the 1 st petitioner in asking the deceased to leave the spot due to his intoxicated condition. Before taking cognizance of the offence against the public servants, sanction from the competent authority is required. Killing of a person by use of excessive force could never be performance of duty. Perusal of FIR, charge-sheet and suicide note would show that no ingredients of Section 306 IPC are made out against the petitioners. The statements of witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would reveal that the petitioners tried to get the quality work in time since it involves lives of lacks of people, who travel in Railways. The deceased was not a party to the contract and hence there is no obligating relation between the deceased and the petitioners and hence, the occasion of harassing the deceased by the petitioners does not arise. The persons who are serving in responsible posts like the petitioners would certainly suffer great prejudice if they are subjected for prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. 7. While requesting to allow this criminal revision case by setting aside the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions and grounds, relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sankaran Moitra Vs. Sadhna Das and another , (2006) 4 SCC 584 , State of Orissa Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew , (2004) 8 SCC 40 , Pancham Lal Vs. Dadan Singh , 1977 SCC OnLine Pat 118 , Dr.Ravindra Vs. VK Panwar , (1987) SCC LnLine MP 189, Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another , (2010) 8 SCC 628 , Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan , (2021) 19 SCC 144 and M.Arjunan Vs. State , (2019) 3 SCC 315 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of MP , (2002) 5 SCC 371 . 8. VK Panwar , (1987) SCC LnLine MP 189, Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another , (2010) 8 SCC 628 , Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan , (2021) 19 SCC 144 and M.Arjunan Vs. State , (2019) 3 SCC 315 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of MP , (2002) 5 SCC 371 . 8. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vociferously opposed the present criminal revision case mainly contending that basing on the expert’s opinion and the statements of witnesses the Section of law was altered, the seized personal diary of the year 2019 containing the suicide note written by the deceased prima-facie lays the accusation against the accused about their act of abusing the deceased in filthy language and in such circumstances to elicit the true set of facts full-trial is required and taking into consideration the said aspects the trial Court had rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners and in that view of the matter the said findings cannot be stated to be perverse and erroneous. Further, the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not warrant interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. Thus stating, it is requested to dismiss the present revision. 9. This Court perused the entire material placed on record including the impugned order and the settled proposition of law laid down in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners and heard the submissions made on either side. The main ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to not obtaining sanction from the competent authority to prosecute the petitioners, who are the public servants. In this regard it is pertinent to mention herein the authoritative findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari , [MANU/SC/0071/1955] that it is not always necessary that the need for sanction under section 197 of Cr.P.C. is to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations therein contained. The question may arise at any stage of the proceedings. The question may arise at any stage of the proceedings. The complaint may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty but facts subsequently coming to light on a police or judicial inquiry or even in the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial, may establish the necessity for sanction. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. The necessity may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case. It is not the case of both sides that the competent authority declined to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioners. In view of the above factual scenario, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners with regard to sanction have no force. 10. As can be seen from the record and also the statements of witnesses, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners are the supervising and certifying authority on behalf of the Railways with regard to execution of contract works of formation of new broad-gauge Railway line from Jaklar to Krishna for 36 KM entrusted to the brother of deceased Mahender Reddy. Further, the charge- sheet reveals that the deceased along with his brother Mahender Reddy by residing in a rented room was executing the contract work along with labour from October, 2019. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioners that they have no acquaintance with the deceased cannot be countenanced. The allegations levelled in the charge-sheet further show that the petitioners taking advantage of their official position intentionally harassed the deceased and his contractor brother for their share of commission percentage and several times the petitioners abused the deceased and the workers in filthy language. It is also the recital of charge-sheet that having vexed with the harassment meted out by the petitioners, the deceased, by writing a suicide note, committed suicide on 28.02.2020. However, the said allegations have to be established and proved on the strength of full-fledged trial. The investigating officer has recorded the statements of witnesses, some of whom have supported the case of the prosecution, and their veracity has to be tested by examining them in the trial. However, the said allegations have to be established and proved on the strength of full-fledged trial. The investigating officer has recorded the statements of witnesses, some of whom have supported the case of the prosecution, and their veracity has to be tested by examining them in the trial. In such circumstances, it can be said that there are prima-facie allegations made against the petitioners and hence, without subjecting them for the litmus test of trial they cannot be discharged. Declaring the petitioners as innocents or otherwise at this premature stage will not meet the ends of justice. 11. Record further goes to show that when the petitioners filed Criminal Petition No.4313 of 2022 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings in PRC No.1 of 2021, on the file of learned II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways at Secunderabad i.e. the present criminal proceedings, this Court as per orders dated 06.06.2022, while relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra , [ AIR 2019 SC 847 ] held that the petitioners have to take their defences during the course of trial and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. It is further held by this Court on the aspect of not obtaining sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., that the same can be taken by the authorities even during trial. This Court relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh , [ AIR 2021 SC 931 ] dismissed the said criminal petition stating that in rarest of rare cases only the inherent powers can be exercised to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 12. The decisions rendered by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot lead this Court to take a decision in favour of the petitioners for their discharge since, as stated supra, there are prima-facie allegations made against the petitioners and the same requires full-fledged trial. 13. The decisions rendered by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot lead this Court to take a decision in favour of the petitioners for their discharge since, as stated supra, there are prima-facie allegations made against the petitioners and the same requires full-fledged trial. 13. When the above discussed factual matrix, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions and the findings of this Court made in Crl.P.No.4313 of 2022 are conjointly scrutinized, this Court finds no apparent error or perversity in the findings made by the trial Court through the impugned order and hence, it can be safely held that the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 14. In the result, this criminal revision case is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.