Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Bura Manohar vs The State Of A.P. on 25 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)ALT(CRI)184, 2002CRILJ3322
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. This is a petition filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 78 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapalli.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4-9-2001 at about 5 p.m. the petitioner, who is a Motor Vehicle Inspector, stopped the lorry being driven by Tirupathi Reddy, the husband of the de facto complainant (L.W. 1) and demanded vehicle documents on the pretext that the lorry is overloaded and after the deceased handed over the documents of the lorry, the petitioner pulled the deceased down by holding his shirt collar, from the lorry and abused him in vulgar language and kicked with his shoe and directed him to bring the lorry to his office. So, the deceased took the lorry to the office of the petitioner, located at Peddapalli and kept the lorry in front of his office and no sooner than the deceased got down from the lorry, petitioner pulled him into his office and beat him and directed him to bring some amount by the next day and let him off with a warning. The deceased who was humiliated and insulted by the petitioner went to the bus stand and consumed unknown pesticide and slept in the lorry and died. Thus the petitioner committed offences Under Sections 323, 504, 306 and 342, IPC.
3. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing or the petitioner contends that even if the allegation in the complaint are taken to be wholly true the offence under Section 306, IPC is not made out as the necessary ingredients for abetment under Section 107, IPC are not men-tioned in the charge-sheet.
4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. I agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that even if all the averments in the complaint are taken to be wholly true, they do not make the offence under Section 306, IPC, because the necessary ingredients of 'abetment' as defined in Section 107, IPC are lacking.
6. In V. Sankaraiah v. State of A.P. 2002 (1) LS 345, after referring to the case law on the subject, I held that if there is no 'abetment' as defined under Section 107, IPC in case of suicide by an individual, merely because of the acts of the accused the deceased felt humiliated and committed suicide the accused cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Section 306, IPC.
7. The case of the prosecution in this case is that due to the acts of the petitioner, the deceased felt humiliated and committed suicide. Act causing humiliation may be the offence, but if there is no material on record to show that there was 'abetment' as defined in Section 107, IPC for the deceased committing suicide, a charge under Section 306, IPC cannot be framed against the accused. In this case since there is no material on record to show that the petitioner committed any act of 'abetment' as defined in Section 107, IPC for, the deceased committed suicide, Petitioner cannot be charged for an offence under Section 306, IPC. Since there is prima facie material for other offences alleged against the petitioner, the entire charge-sheet cannot be quashed.
8. Therefore, the petition is partly allowed and offence under Section 306, IPC mentioned in the charge-sheet is directed to be deleted. Since the other offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by a Magistrate, the learned Magistrate should take the charge-sheet on his file as C.C. to dispose of the same as per law.