Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sandit Jitendrabhai Manek & on 5 October, 2015
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
R/CR.MA/8071/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8071 of 2015
(FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 586 of 2015
========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Applicant(s)
Versus
SANDIT JITENDRABHAI MANEK & 1....Respondent(s)
========================================================
Appearance:
MR H. L. JANI, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ANAND YAGNIK, ADVOCATE for MR RIDDHESH TRIVEDI,
ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 2
========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 05/10/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Advocate Shri Anand Yagnik waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Present Criminal Misc. Application has been filed by the applicantState under Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking leave to appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No.15 of 2012 by the Sessions Judge, Rajkot dated 30.09.2014 for the offences punishable under section 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, on the grounds stated in the memo of application.
3. Heard learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for applicantState and learned Counsel Shri Anand Yagnik appearing with learned Advocate Shri Riddhesh Trivedi for the Respondentsaccused.
Page 1 of 5
HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 09 00:14:18 IST 2015
R/CR.MA/8071/2015 ORDER
4. Learned APP Shri H. L. Jani has referred to the report and other papers including the suicide note produced at Exh.31 and submitted that in the background of the facts narrated, the suicide note clearly suggests the harassment which has led to commit suicide. Learned APP has also referred to Section 306 of the IPC and submitted that it is the ultimate effect of such pressure culminating into the suicide and therefore the judgment and order recording acquittal is not justified. In support of his submissions he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 1446 in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and emphasized the observations made therein.
5. Learned Counsel Shri Anand Yagnik however, referred to the background of the facts, which have been narrated and discussed in the impugned judgment and order. He emphasized that the deceased has indulged in wrong activity of selling pirated CDs, which earned the bad name for the family. He submitted that therefore alongwith suicide note there are other letters and they suggest about his regrets also. He therefore submitted that ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are not established or fulfilled and therefore there is no abatement.
He submitted that if there was any property dispute, a person may have taken extreme steps which may not attract Section 306 of the IPC. He therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and order recording acquittal may not be disturbed. Learned Counsel Shri Yagnik submitted that in any case considering the scope of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and acquittal appeals, even if the other view is possible, the Court may not disturb the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Court below.
Page 2 of 5
HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 09 00:14:18 IST 2015
R/CR.MA/8071/2015 ORDER
6. In view of these rival submissions and having perused the record and proceedings as well as the suicide note produced at Exh.31 and other letters, it transpires that there was some dispute or family dispute with regard to shop. Apart from anything with regard to background, if there was some dispute with regard to the property or business, it does not necessarily lead to commission of suicide. The harassment must be of such a nature, which leaves no option with the person but to commit suicide. Again, there has to be direct and proximate cause for suicide. The necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC are required to be fulfilled which in turn require mens ria, coupled with the harassment, so as to see that the deceased commits suicide and has left with no other option but to commit suicide. A useful reference can be made to the judgment reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State (Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police) and AIR 2011 SC 1290 in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs. Union of India and Ors. .
7. As referred to in judicial pronouncements, in order to record conviction under section 306 of the IPC, there must be mens ria and it has to be gathered with the surrounding circumstances and material and evidence on the record in a given facts of the case. Again, some quarrel or dispute was going on for some time with regard to family business and selling pirated CDs. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a cause for suicide and in any case, Section 306 of the IPC would not be attracted as necessary ingredients are not fulfilled with regard to direct or proximate cause bearing on the issue. Further, as the dispute was going on for sometime, it cannot be said that there was any provocation as it was the Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 09 00:14:18 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/8071/2015 ORDER sufficient time to balance. Therefore, it cannot be said that it has culminated into a suicide as submitted by learned APP Shri Jani.
As this Court is in complete agreement with the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Court below, it does not called for any interference.
8. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements has laid down the broad guidelines with regard to the approach in such acquittal appeals including the observations made in a judgment reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 in the case of Chandrappa and Ors., Vs. State of Karnataka. Further, the same view has also been reiterated and reconsidered again in a subsequent judgment including observations made in a judgment reported in AIR 2013 SC 274 in the case of Murugesan and ors., Vs. State through Inspector of Police as well as a judgment reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 in the case of Mookiiah and Anr. Vs. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, observing that if the view taken by the Court below is possible view, then the same cannot be disturbed, merely because the other view is possible.
Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid facts, the view taken by the Court below is plausible view and therefore, it cannot be said to be erroneous much less perverse, which would call for any interference.
9. Therefore, leave is refused. Present Criminal Misc. Application seeking leave to appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 09 00:14:18 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/8071/2015 ORDER (RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) Tuvar Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Fri Oct 09 00:14:18 IST 2015