Telangana High Court
G.Vijaya Lalitha vs The State Of Telangana on 26 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10863 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.169 of 2023 of Kesamudram Police Station, Mahubabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that the victim-mother of respondent No.3 is working as watchman at TSWREIS Girls College at Inugurthy. Since five years, prior to her death, the petitioner, who is the Principal in the said college was harassing the victim on one pretext or the other i.e., to do the work as instructed by her instead of doing Watchman duty and abused her in filthy language and abetting her to commit suicide. It is further stated that due to the continuous harassment of the 2 SKS, J Crl.P.No.10863 of 2023 petitioner, the victim vexed upon her life and swollen tablets and committed suicide. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.169 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 511 of IPC. Hence, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against her.
3. Heard Sri G. V. Shivaji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri S.A. Mahadev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the principal in the said college. The victim was working as Watchman in the said college on outsourcing basis and has been continuously showing dereliction in duties. While the victim was in night duty, 3 students of 5th class climbed the compound wall and escaped from the institution. The petitioner, vide memo dated 01.09.2022, reported the same to the higher authority. He further submitted that when the victim was instructed to attend night duties on 31.07.2023 and 01.08.2023, as the other Watchman was 3 SKS, J Crl.P.No.10863 of 2023 absent, she did not attend the duties, which was a serious disturbance in providing security to the girl students. Therefore, petitioner reported the dereliction and negligence of the victim in performing her duties, vide letter Rc.No.1/Watchwoman/2023, dated 14.09.2023 and 15.09.2023 to the higher authorities i.e., Regional Coordinator of TSWREIS Khammam Region. He further submitted that the said complaint was made with mala fide intention and with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and due to the harassment only, the mother of respondent No.3 committed suicide and it is the matter which requires trial. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on 4 SKS, J Crl.P.No.10863 of 2023 record, it appears that the petitioner is working as Principal in the A.P. Social Welfare Residential School, Devarakonda, Nalgonda and the victim, who is the mother of respondent No.3, is working as Watchwoman in the said school. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the victim was not performing her duties well, as such, the petitioner reported the same to the higher authorities about the dereliction and negligence of the victim. As seen from the record, the petitioner gave memo to the Watchwoman basing on the complaint given by the other teachers. Therefore, it is clear that there is no abatement by the petitioner for the death of deceased.
7. Section 306 of I.P.C, deals with abetment of suicide which reads as under :
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.5
SKS, J Crl.P.No.10863 of 2023
8. The ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C, were elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Arjunan Vs State 1 wherein it was observed as under :
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
9. Similarly, in Ude Singh Vs State of Haryana 2 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C., and the factors to be considered while determining whether a case falls within the ambit of the said provision. The relevant portion reads as under :
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of 1 (2019) 3 SCC 315 2 (2019) 17 SCC 301 6 SKS, J Crl.P.No.10863 of 2023 suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case."
10. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab 3, in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 of I.P.C, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.
11. Having regard to the observations made in the above judgments and the provision under Section 306 of I.P.C, to constitute the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C., a person should abet the commission of such suicide. In the present case, to constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC there must be abatement by the accused, but the averments in the 3 (2020) 10 SCC 200 7 SKS, J Crl.P.No.10863 of 2023 complaint and as seen from the record, does not show such abatement.
12. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the observations made by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P., and Another 4 . The relevant paragraph Nos.8, 12, 13 and 14 read as under:
"8. The fact that the complainant Smt. Tara Devi wife of the petitioner is alive, is not disputed, therefore, issuance of notice to Smt. Tara Devi was dispensed with, as the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his contention to the maintainability of offence punishable under S. 306 IPC or 306/511 IPC only.
12. Section 306 IPC reads as under:--
"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."
13. As mentioned above, it is admitted case of the parties that Smt. Tara Devi had not committed any suicide and is still alive. Therefore, there is no question of making out any offence punishable under S. 306 IPC against the petitioner.
4 2002 SCC OnLine All 1634 8 SKS, J Crl.P.No.10863 of 2023
14. The fact that offence punishable under S. 306 IPC was not made out, was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, but he went a step further and observed that it is clear from the statement of mother of Smt. Tara Devi and other witnesses during investigation that in an attempt to commit suicide from the cruel act or behaviour of the revisionist, Smt. Tara Devi jumped into Saryu river but was saved. Therefore, offence under S. 306 IPC read with 511 IPC cannot be ruled out."
13. In the case on hand also, the mother of respondent No.2 has not committed any suicide. Therefore, there is no question of offence under Section 306 of IPC. Further, Section 511 IPC deals with punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment. Section 511 IPC reads as under:--
"Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with (imprisonment for life) or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case maybe, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment 9 SKS, J Crl.P.No.10863 of 2023 provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."
14. Reverting back to the facts of the case on hand, there are no other specific set of allegations against the petitioners to prove the offence under Section 511 of IPC. Further, as there is no suicide, Section 306 of IPC is also not applicable. In addition, it is apparent to note that even otherwise, the facts of the case do not constitute offence under Section 511 of IPC. Therefore, the ingredients in the complaint or in the charge sheet do not constitute the offence alleged against the petitioner and the proceedings against her are liable to be quashed.
15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.169 of 2023 of Kesamudram Police Station, Mahubabad District, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
______________ K.SUJANA, J Date : 26.09.2024 SAI