Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Swapan Roy & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 29 April, 2016
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revision Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
C.R.R. 4157 of 2015
Sri Swapan Roy & Anr.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arindam Jana, Advocate
Mr. Soumyajit Banerjee, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Somnath Banerjee, Advocate
No.2 Mr. Pronojit Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Heard on : 29.2.2016, 14.3.2016, 28.3.2016 &
20.4.2016
Judgement on : April 29, 2016.
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :
Proceeding in SC 53(II)/2014 arising out of BGR Case No.517/2011 corresponding to Thakurpur Police Station Case No.44 of 2011 dated 07.01.2011 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) has been assailed.
It appears that over the unfortunate death of a young boy namely Subrata Das, his mother, the opposite party no.2 herein, initiated a criminal proceeding being Thakurpukur PS Case No.340 dated 04.08.2009 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against some of the friends of deceased, namely, Mrinmoy, Rajasree, Suvadeep and Debraj. It was alleged in the said complaint that Subrata was a first year student of Kolkata Institute of Engineering & Management College. The de facto complainant had presented a costly mobile phone and a motor cycle to him for his personal use. His classmates used to harass him and dishonestly took away his mobile phone and he was constrained to inform the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Regent Park Police Station. Suddenly on 30.05.2009 in between 9.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. he committed suicide by hanging himself from the ceiling. It was further alleged that day before the incident the victim had gone out to meet his friends and had come back in a disturbed frame of mind. Investigation in the instant case resulted in filing of a final report wherein prayer was made for discharge of the said accused persons. No naraji petition was filed. Final report was accepted. After a lapse of about two years, the impugned criminal proceeding was lodged by the opposite party no.2 alleging that the petitioners who are the matrimonial uncle and aunt of the victim had abetted the commission of suicide by the victim. Investigation in the instant case initially resulted in filing of a final report. On prayer of opposite party no.2, further investigation was directed. During such further investigation a diary was belatedly produced by the opposite party no.2 purportedly written by the victim wherein comments had been made as to the conduct of the petitioners which, according to the opposite party no.2, prompted the victim to commit suicide. Such diary was seized and the charge sheet was filed against the petitioners under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that ingredients of the alleged offence relating to abetment of commission of suicide are not disclosed in the factual matrix of the case. Initially the opposite party no.2 raised her suspicion against the friends of the victim and after final report was filed she has presently trained her gun against the petitioners alleging that they are responsible for the suicide of her son. It is further submitted that the diary was produced after four years of the death of the victim and the same is a manufactured document. Even believing such document to be genuine, comments recorded therein by no stretch of imagination can implicate the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime. He, accordingly, prayed for quashing of the proceeding.
Learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.2 submitted that she was misled in lodging earlier criminal case against the friends of the deceased. It was the petitioners who misbehaved with the deceased as would appear from the entries made by him in the diary which was seized in the course of further investigation and such issue requires to be adjudicated in the course of trial.
Learned Advocate for the State produced a case diary.
I have considered the materials on record. Initially the opposite party no.2 for the reasons best known to her had initiated criminal proceeding against the friends of her deceased son for abetment of commission of suicide by her son. When such prosecution ended in filing of a final report, after a lapse of two years she levelled allegations against the petitioners that they were responsible for the death of her son. Pain and agony prevailing in the mind of a mother on the unfortunate death of her son is understandable. However, howsoever one may sympathise with such emotion the same cannot be a ground to abuse the process of criminal law at the hands of a distraught litigant. The opposite party no.2 has after a lapse of about two years from the death of her son alleged that the matrimonial uncle and aunt of the victim were responsible for her son's death. The foundation of such allegation is primarily based on certain entries purportedly made by the victim in his diary. The authenticity of the diary has been seriously questioned by the petitioners. Be that as it may, even if such entries are believed to be of the victim, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the uncontroverted averments therein would amount to abetment as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. On examination of the entries in the diary, I find that the only allegation against the petitioners is that they had asked him to write an essay on Indian revolution and evaluate him. I have failed to understand as to how by comparing the victim with a revolutionary who had dedicated life for the independence of the country, their action can be construed as instigation for committing suicide as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Even if it is construed that such comparisons were made in mockery or by way of jest, I do not find any live link between such alleged taunt and the commission of suicide by the victim. It is settled law that a petulant and hypersensitive act of self annihilation cannot be hinged to every act of criticism made of the victim in ordinary course of business. There must be a direct and proximate link between the alleged instigation and the commission of suicide by the victim to bring such act within the penal scope of Section 306 IPC (see Sanju vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371). In the said report the accused exhorted the victim "to go & die" in course of a quarrel and the victim was found dead two days later. It was held that the proximate link between the exhortation and the act of suicide had snapped and proceeding was quashed. Similarly, in the instant case there is nothing to show when the alleged taunts or criticism of the victim was made by his elders, that is, the petitioners who are no one other than his maternal uncle and aunt and the act of self annihilation so as to form a direct nexus between the two. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the contents of the diary exposes a confused mind and does not disclose a direct act of instigation or goading to commit suicide by the victim. It has been held in a series of authorities if analysis of the suicide note in the factual backdrop merely discloses ill-treatment or criticism of a hypersensitive victim in ordinary course of human events, the same cannot be construed to an act of instigation under Section 107 IPC to commit suicide (See Modan Mahan Singh vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 and State of Kerala vs. KP Unnikrishnan Nair, (2015) 9 SCC 639). The ratio of the aforesaid authorities apply with full force to the facts of the case.
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that initiation and continuation of the proceeding is an abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed. Hence proceeding in SC 53(II)/2014 arising out of BGR Case No.517/2011 corresponding to Thakurpur Police Station Case No.44 of 2011 dated 07.01.2011 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South), is quashed.
The revision petition is, thus, allowed.
The case diary be returned at once.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) PA to J. Bagchi, J.
RP (A.R)