Madras High Court
S.Balasubramaniam vs State Rep. By on 21 February, 2022
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 15.02.2022
Pronounced on : 21.02.2022
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022
and Crl,M.P.No.1164 of 2022
S.Balasubramaniam .. Petitioner / Petitioner / Accused
Vs.
State Rep. By
Inspector of Police
G-3, Kilpauk Police Station
Chennai.
[Crime No.01/2012]
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to Crl.M.P.No.4969 of 2021 in
S.C.No.37 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai and to set aside the order dated 21.10.2021 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.4969 pf 2021 in S.C.No.37 of 2021 by the learned IV
Additional Judge (In-charge), III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Deivanandam
For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This revision is preferred by the sole accused in S.C.No.37 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.4969 of 2021, which the revision petitioner has filed seeking his discharge from the case.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
● The allegation in the FIR was that a certain Manikandan from the Institute of Catering Technology and Hotel Management has joined as a Trainee in Hotel Abu Palace from 01.12.2011. On 01.01.2012, at around 7.15 a.m., he jumped from the fourth floor of the said hotel, that he was immediately removed to the Government Hospital where he breathed his last at about 10.15a.m. Sasikumar, the Personal Manager of the hotel 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 preferred a complaint to the respondent police, based on which, a case in Crime No.1 of 2012 was registered under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C.
● The Investigating Agency swung into action and recorded the statements of witnesses according to which there was a New Year eve party on the night of 31.12.2011, that sometime after midnight, Manikandan appeared to have entered the kitchen without knocking the door. Taking exception to this, the accused, who was the Chief Chef was alleged to have chastised or even abused Manikandan verbally.
● The Investigator cried eureka and cites this incident to accuse that the accused/revision petitioner with his verbal abuse had abetted Manikandan to commit suicide.
● Contending that the material made available by the Investigating Agency in his final report will not constitute an offence in terms of the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, the accused preferred Crl.M.P.No.4969 of 2021 before the Sessions Court for discharging him of the accusation.
3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 ● The Sessions Court Vide its order dated 21.10.2021 dismissed the same. According to it, the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. whose quintessence has been detailed herein above, would fall within the ambit of Sec. 306 IPC., Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, the revision petitioner has moved this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that even assuming the prosecution line of incident is accepted as true, still it only indicates that the boy might have been hyper-sensitive, and at can never be construed as an abetment to suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC., He relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu & Others [(2019) 10 SCC 188] and S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another [(2010) 12 SCC 190].
4. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the respondent who supported the line of reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge. 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 5.1 Before dealing with the specifics of this case, a general statement on the prosecutorial understanding and approach may have to be made:
➢ In every case of suicide, the investigating agency is accustomed to search for the most proximate incident before the suicide to fix the cause for it, and the one who is involved in any such incident is invariably made an instant abettor of the crime under Sec.306 IPC. ➢ Like the last seen theory, the last known incident before the suicide may not always qualify as an abetment to commit it, for a suicide is a psychological response of the victim to a situation which is peculiar and personal to the victim. The behaviour that drives one to commit suicide is a deviation from the ordinary course of human conduct to an external or internal stimuli. It may be an impulsive response to an one off incident, but generally it is triggered by a sense of helplessness to which a victim of suicide is driven to.
➢ Decoding the cause of a suicide is difficult to accomplish. It may 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 have to be reminded that the new millennium eligibility for a safer life in this world is built on ones’ ability to pass the stress-test, as if we are concrete blocks, which organised pressure-groups such as the parents, the peer, the society, ruthlessly, incessantly and mercilessly impose. The ecosystem we live in is such that every morning most of us start running mentally even in our beds. And there are those who keep running even in their sleep. The society today has been reduced to a huge market where brand value has become the X factor to retain market relevance. From an individual to an educational institution to corporate enterprises to professionals - all have been reduced to a saleable commodity, and hence each must necessarily have a brand name for their survival. Trapped there is the life of an individual and the insecurity over survival.
➢ Stress and fear of survival, no matter at what level it is, addressed chiefly in terms of its management as if it is a life style disease. There is no dearth of conferences and symposiums or yoga and meditations in this country advocating techniques for negotiating 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 stress born of ones’ loss of self esteem, self belief and helplessness. Psychologists name them very differently. However, the compulsion on most of us to meet the standards that another set for our life continues to remain solid. Caught in the organised whirlpool (or is it cesspool?) of this mayhem, somewhere, someone gets frustrated and misbehaves. And any such one off act of misbehaviour of one turns into the last straw to break the back of the victim’s will to fight. A suicide results. ➢ Sadly, the investigator in this country is rest contended with connecting the last two dots – the last incident and the suicide, and feel relieved when they lay the final report. And, it should not be ignored that the policemen in this country are one of the most frustrated, as their service conditions are frighteningly terrible. And today, they have easily become the soft targets of blame for all that which our general irresponsibility may produce. This results in they sometime ending up doing an unprofessional job of their responsibility. A standing example may well be the approach of an investigator to an offence under Sec.306 IPC 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 founded on a solitary incident with no suicide note or a dying declaration to provide a clue. Invariably the investigator connects the suicide to the last event before it and relies on a primitive logic of establishing a cause and result relationship to fix criminal liability on the suspect, and merrily stops there. But life, its challenges and the responses they evoke are far too complex that unless an investigator opts to undertake a psychological study of the victim and the suspect, the real cause of a suicide can rarely be decoded or constructed. Sadly, our investigators have not been adequately trained in that, but as indicated earlier they themselves are caught in a certain vicious circle which often reduces their pattern of investigation of an offence under Sec.306 IPC to some kind of a slapstick comedy. Our policemen are required to be trained differently.
5.2 Elsewhere the IPC has a provision in Sec.304-B where cruelty or harassment (in combination with few other ingredients) which result in a sustained suppression of the emotions of the victim has been made a 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 criterion for constituting an offence. But not in Sec.306 IPC. Hence, in all instances of investigation of an offence under Sec.306 IPC, with no suicide-note or a dying declaration to provide a lead to the investigator, it will be highly dangerous to fix criminal liability based on a solitary incident of ordinary variety – like a boss chastising the employee, or a teacher scolding the student, as an abetment to suicide. There must be something more than the last incident before suicide for fastening criminal liability under Sec.306 IPC. In other words, there must be some live link between the suicide and its abetment. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions which constituted the alleged abetment from the act of suicide would clearly fall short of the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. This was pointed out by the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433, in the following passage:
“It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these con- stituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualise the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abet- ment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.” In the context of the present case, the observations of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, are apposite.
The deceased, who was a driver under the accused, had committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note that he was humiliated by the accused. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and reiterated that in the absence of any nexus between the suicide and the alleged act of the accused, a prosecution under Section 306 was wholly unfounded. The Court opined thus:
“It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main per- son is not available for cross-examination by the appellant-accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not ex- actly a pleasant experience.” In State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu & Others [(2019) 10 SCC 188], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless the accused by his acts or by his continuous conduct creates situations so miserable for the vic-
tim, leaving the victim without any alternative but to commit suicide, an in-
stigation to commit an offence cannot be inferred. On the facts of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences will hardly constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC.,
6. Contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the pattern of investigation to which both the investigator and the Courts are accustomed to, more often presents the trust of the policemen in their belief in the causation-theory and their preference for the last known incident theory. Inasmuch as abetment has a statutory definition in Sec.107 IPC, the 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 investigation-pattern often fails to telescope the ingredients of Sec.107 into Sec.306 IPC for establishing a triable case. Therefore, there is a need for a broad based investigation which must concentrate on the existence of a live link between the alleged act or omission on the part of the accused and the suicide. This may now mean that the investigators must factor in, wherever required, the psychological, sociological or any other factors that may have the possibility of affecting the victim’s will to fight, and to ascertain if they fulfil the ingredients of Sec.107 IPC before contemplating to telescope them into Sec.306 IPC for framing a charge.
7. Turning to the specifics of this case, if the final report in the present case is tested on the plane of what have been stated herein above, it has to be stated that it starts and ends with a solitary incident where the revision petitioner/accused was alleged to have chastised or abused verbally the victim. Consequently it cannot be held that the revision petitioner had abetted Manikandan within the meaning of Sec.306 IPC to commit suicide.
8. To conclude, this court does not find that the final report filed in this case 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 possess materials to frame charge for trial of the revision petitioner for an offence under Sec.306 IPC. This petition is allowed, and the revision petitioner/accused will stand discharged of the accusation made against him.
21.02.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ds To:
1. The III Additional City Civil Court Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 N.SESHASAYEE.J., ds Pre-delivery order in Crl.R.C.No.120 of 2022 21.02.2022 14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis