Kerala High Court
Murali vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 4 September, 2010
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/8TH KARTHIKA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 2570 of 2012 ()
--------------------------
FIR NO.590/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 AND 3:
-----------------------------
1. MURALI, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.APPUKUTTAN, 61/62 RAJ PLAZA, 3RD MAIN ROAD
5TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.
2. P.ACHUTHANKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.M.S.NAIR, CHAITHANYA PERMKULAM, ALATHUR TALUK
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SMT.JEENA JOSEPH
SRI.G.D.PANICKER
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE:
---------------------------------
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682031.
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.NO.2570/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1: COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE OF THE CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2: ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE A3: ALLEGED SUICIDE NOTE OF THE DECEASED.
ANNEXURE A4: COPY OF THE FIR NO.590/2010 DATED 04.09.2010 LODGED BY THE
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD, TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A5: STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE WIFE OF THE DECEASED BEFRORE
THE RESPONDENT ON 19.9.2010.
ANNEXURE A6(1): STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE WIFE OF THE DECEASED BEFORE
THE RESPONDENT ON 28.4.2011 RESPECTIVELY.
ANNEXURE A6(2): STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE WIFE OF THE DECEASED BEFORE
THE RESPONDENT ON 30.04.2011, RESPECTIVELY.
ANNEXURE A6(3): STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE WIFE OF THE DECEASED BEFORE
THE RESPONDENT ON 25.8.2011, RESPECTIVELY.
ANNEXURE A7: COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDNET
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,
PALAKKAD.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A . TO JUDGE
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl.M.C.NO.2570 OF 2012
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2012
O R D E R
Petitioners are two among the accused in a pending case S.C.No.296 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Palakkad. The aforesaid case arose from the report filed in Crime No.590 of 2010 of Palakkad Town North Police Station for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused persons and its committal by the magistrate to the Sessions Court since the offence involved is exclusively triable by that court. Petitioners have filed the above petition to quash the proceedings against them contending that it is an abuse of process of the court.
2. One Mohanakrishnan committed suicide on 04.09.2010 at a tourist home, namely, A.V. Tourist Home, Palakkad. He left behind a suicide note narrating the circumstances which compelled him to take away his life. Annexure A3 is a copy of that suicide note. In that suicide note, he referred to the Crl.M.C.No.2570/2012 2 harassment inflicted on him on account of some money transactions by one Mansingh Jayakumar, and also two others, the present petitioners. Crime registered over the suicide of the aforesaid Mohanakrishnan has led to the filing of the report indicting the three persons referred to above for the offence stated supra. Imputations made against the petitioners to prosecute them with the 1st accused as having abetted the victim in committing suicide and, thus, culpable for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, is unsustainable under law and facts, is their case to seek quashing the criminal proceedings against them as an abuse of process of the court.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Adverting to the annexures produced with the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that other than some statements subsequently made by the wife of the victim, there is no material evidence to connect the petitioners for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. At any rate, even the imputations made by the wife in her statements given to police and recorded under Section 161 of Crl.M.C.No.2570/2012 3 the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Code', which are produced as Annexure A5 and A6 series, no case to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC would lie against the present petitioners, is the submission of the counsel.
4. Annexure A3 is a copy of the suicide note of the victim. Though there is some reference over vexing and harassing of the victim cruelly by the petitioners with one Mansingh Jayakumar, the 1st accused, the contents of note as such does not indicate that in committing suicide by the victim there was any abetment by petitioners for such act. With the 1st accused, the victim had some money transactions and despite payment of substantial sum, he was tortured by that accused after collecting some cheques from him, and, petitioners are two vultures who too cruelly hunted him, is the imputation made in the suicide note. The victim also stated that all the aforesaid three persons would be given appropriate punishment by the almighty for the cruelties inflicted on him. Statements made as above in the suicide note do not indicate that other than some cruel treatment, there was abetment from the petitioners in driving Crl.M.C.No.2570/2012 4 him to commit suicide. Section 107 of the IPC spells out what are the ingredients to constitute abetment. The essential ingredients are (1) instigating any person to commit an offence or (2) by engaging with one or more other person in any conspiracy to commit it or (3) by intentionally aiding a person to commit it. To constitute an offence of Section 306 of the IPC, it must be established that a person committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission thereof. Whoever abets the commission of a suicide of a person can be prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. Whether there was abetment by another in the commission of a suicide of a victim, necessarily, has to be examined in the backdrop whether there was instigation by the accused person urging the victim to commit suicide. The Apex Court in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. ((2002) 5 SCC 371) has held the incitement or instigation by the accused person must have some direct nexus with the suicide of the victim. In that case, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased two days before the victim committed suicide. In the midst of that quarrel the accused had told the deceased 'to go and die'. Deceased left a suicide note which Crl.M.C.No.2570/2012 5 showed his disturbed state of mind in which he blamed the accused for suicide. Circumstances presented in the case, it was held, was not sufficient to constitute that there was instigation from the accused to constitute abetment in driving the victim to commit suicide. The Apex Court has held thus:
"The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
So much so, I find the allegation of cruelty imputed in the suicide note by the victim, but, not of any incitement from them driving him to commit suicide, at any point of time immediately close to his suicide, cannot be considered as acts instigating his suicide by the petitioners. Statements recorded from the widow of the victim are Annexures A5 and A6 series. At a later stage of the investigation she had stated to the police that her husband committed suicide unable to bear the harassment and cruelties inflicted on him by the accused persons. Though she has imputed that these petitioners along with the 1st accused instigated the victim, her husband, to commit suicide, no specific Crl.M.C.No.2570/2012 6 particulars in what way they incited or stimulated him to do that act other than that they had harassed and inflicted cruelty on the victim is disclosed by her statements to the police. Prosecution of the petitioners (A2 and A3) for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC on the basis of Annexure A7 report and other annexures produced thereto in the crime, in the aforesaid circumstances, is liable to be quashed.
5. Criminal proceedings against the petitioners (A2 and A3) in S.C.No.296 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Palakkad, are quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Crl.M.C. is disposed of.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp