Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It is further alleged in the FIR that soon after the marriage applicant no.1 started humiliating the deceased calling him a person of low caste. This led to frequent quarrels between the deceased and applicants. In the last thirty seven years applicant no.1 did not permit the deceased-Sundar and applicant no.2 to visit his (applicant no.1's house). Applicant no.1 did not permit the applicant no.2 to meet their (applicant no.1 and 2's) mother. On that count there used to be quarrels between the deceased and applicant no.1. on 15.02.2018 deceased-Sundar had posted a message on Facebook calling (3) cri appln 2235.19 upon applicant no.1 to let applicant no.2 meet her mother. In that post the deceased had mentioned that applicant no.1 had made the deceased to apologise on account of poor financial position of the deceased. The said post on facebook gives detailed account of the harassment caused by applicant no.1 to the deceased. Deceased-Sundar had narrated to the informant the harassment caused to the deceased by applicant no.1 and sister of the deceased by name of Gayabai Dinkar Garje, Chayabai Vishwanath Sonawane, Chaya brother Shivaji and nephew Ambikaprasad Vishwanath Sonawane. Applicant no.1 took applicant no.2 to his house from the matrimonial home of applicant no.2. At that time applicant no.1 had said to applicant no.2 that applicant no.2 should not live with a person of low caste like the deceased- Sundar. Applicant no.1 was responsible for spoiling the relations between the deceased-Sundar and applicant no.2. The deceased Sundar was in deep love with applicant no.2.

9. Shri Kale and Shri Tandale submitted that applicant no.1 was responsible for the marital discord between applicant no.2 and the deceased. Suicide note also shows that applicant no.1 was responsible for spoiling the marriage of the deceased-Sundar and applicant no.2. They submitted that applicant no.1 caused unnecessary interference in their marriage. Due to which applicant no.2 left the society of deceased Sundar and started living (6) cri appln 2235.19 with applicant no.1. They submitted that the Facebook post dated 15.02.2018 implicates applicant no.1 for the suicide of the deceased. They submitted that applicant no.1 created such a situation that the deceased was left with no alternative but to put an end to his life. They therefore prayed for the dismissal of the application.

10. The contents of the FIR indicate that applicant no.1 caused harassment to the deceased-Sundar. The contents further indicate that applicant no.1 used to humiliate deceased Sundar by calling him a person of low caste. Facebook post dated 15.02.2018 by suicide belies these contentions. Facebook post is re-produced in verbatim as under:

"vjs laT;k] lkBh vksykaMyh rjh rq lq/kkj.kkj ukghl- rw Lor%yk pk.kD; letrksl Ik.k lOok :i;s nf{k.kk ?ks.kkjk HkVth ns[khy rqÖ;kis{kk ljl Bjsy- eqGkr rw lk;dks >kyk vkgsl- ukuk QM.kohl rj vk/khpkp ! rq ukWjey vlrkl rj l[;k cfg.khyk frP;k vkbZyk HksVw fnys vlrsl- ekÖ;k ck;dksyk frP;k vkbZyk HksV.;klkBh izR;sd osGh rqÖ;k gkr&ikk iMkos ykxrs] fouaR;k djkO;k ykxrkr ! HkMO;k] rw lk;dks ukghl rj dk;\ vkrk frP;k vkbZyk HksV.;kph ijokuxh feGo.;klkBh mPPk U;k;ky;kr tk;ps dk\ iksfylkaps laj{k.k ekxk;ps dk\ vjs fdrh iS'kkpk ekt- vlwu&vlwu fdrh iSlk vlsy rqÖ;kdMs\ Qkj Qkj rj ikp'ks dksVh :i;s- rs rjh dls dekoysl\ lkekftd dk;kZP;k ukok[kkyh- cukoV daIkU;k dk<qu- lkY;k ,dnk pkSd'khr vMdykl rj mOkZjhr Egkrkji.k tsye/;s tkbZy vkf.k rqÖ;klkscr rqÖ;k lxG~;k ck;dkgh vlrhy- tkÅ ns eyk rqÖ;k iS'kkr vkf.k dkG~;k /kan~;kr dkghp baVjsLV ukgh eh rqyk iq<hy dkj.kklkBh gk esy ikBorks vkgs-

eyk laT;keqGs ejk;psp gksrs- vlks] eyk foLk:u tk- Hkfo";kr eh dnkfpr rqÖ;klkBh vks>sp >kyks vlrks- vlks] {kek djkoh-

rq>k HkkÅ fnyhi vkDdk] ?kjkrhy lxGs lkeku rkC;kr ?ksÅu fodqu Vkdk-"

13. The said suicide note does not indicate as to what kind of harassment applicant no.1 had inflicted on deceased-Sundar. The suicide note indicates that he had harassed not only his mother but his sister whom he referred as Akka. The portion of suicide note addressed to Akka shows that he ( 10 ) cri appln 2235.19 would have been a burden on the family. Even if the contents of the suicide note are accepted at their face value, it does not indicate that applicant no.1 had any time instigated, incited or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. If the relations between the husband and wife are strange and if a brother gives shelter to such a destitute wife, it cannot be termed as instigation to commit suicide. Nothing has been brought on record to show except vague allegations that applicant no.1 was responsible for spoiling the marriage of the deceased and applicant no.2 and that applicant no.1 was responsible for the suicide of the deceased-Sundar. On the contrary the facebook post dated 15.02.2018 shows that the deceased had abused the applicants in filthy language. The said post is produced with the charge-sheet. This facebook post nowhere indicates that applicant no.1 had spoiled the marriage of applicant no.2 with deceased-Sundar. On the contrary this facebook post accuses applicant no.1 of attempting murder of applicant no.2. This message indicates that deceased had grievance against applicant no.1. However, merely having grievance cannot amount to instigation. Word instigation has been explained in Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr; (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 734 in [Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi)].