Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Learned APP Smt. Ranjana Reddy, has argued the. matter of length. According to learned APP. Deceased -Bharat was a sensitive person. False allegations in respect of misappropriation of money and ornaments were levelled against him, over a period of one year. Deceased had earlier made an attempt to commit suicide. Inspite or that the persecution continued. The threats of police action during the quarrel is the proximate cause for the suicide. According to learned APP material on record does make out a prima facie case. Therefore, it is not necessary to interfere with the order passed by the trial Judge. In support of her contention, learned APP has placed reliance on the ruling of the Bombay High Court reported in 2004 All MR 501 in the matter of Sujit Dinanath Sadan v. State of Maharashtra.

16. The material on record will have to be examined keeping in view legal principles applicable. In the present case, learned APP has made a reference to the earlier attempt of the deceased for committing suicide. It can be seen that the deceased made an attempt to commit suicide in the month of May 1995. On that occasion, though the deceased did not leave a suicide note, he wrote a letter to his in-laws mentioning therein that he was offended by the false allegation in respect of misappropriation by petitioners 1 to 5. Contents of this letters throw light on the psychological disposition of the deceased. On that occasion, due to timely intervention, the catastrophe was averted. Learned APP submits that inspite of the fact that there was an attempt at committing suicide, harassment continued and finally as a result of the quarrel on 12-12-1995, the deceased left the house and committed suicide. According to learned APP, material on record, therefore, makes out a prima facie case and justify framing of the charge. This contention is fallacious. It is the prosecution case that there was some dispute regarding misappropriation of money from the funds placed at the disposal of the deceased during the course of construction of NISAS building. It can also be seen that there was some controversy over the ornaments in the locker which was in the name of deceased with the Bank of Maharashtra, Chalisgaon Branch. The deceased was not handing over the ornaments, therefore, petitioner No. 2 was advised by her husband to open another locker; but the deceased assured that he will hand-over the ornaments, in the presence of Petitioners No. 1. It appears that this was the reason that after arrival of petitioner No. 1 on 10-12-1995, the first quarrel which took place at about 10 O'clock on 11-12-1995 was over the dispute regarding handing over of gold ornaments. There were disputes between the deceased and Petitioner No. 1 regarding misappropriation of money and usurpation of the ornaments. We are, however, concerned here only with the proximate cause, that is, the quarrels which preceded the suicide. It would also be pertinent to keep in mind that since earlier attempt of suicide no one referred to the misappropriation of money and the controversy centered round the ornaments in the locker which undisputedly belonged to Petitioner No. 1.

18. Evidence on record accepted as it is shows that deceased left the house, on account of quarrel which took place on the night of 12th, because the dispute was taken to the Police. Subsequent developments barring suicide note, are not very clear from the record. It appears that deceased reached "Shangrila" Lodge at Aurangabad, at about 3.20 a.m. He then wrote sucidide note at about 5.00 a.m. and, thereafter, committed suicide. The suicide note contains some allegations regarding Hawala business and possession of several passports by Petitioners 1 and 2, apart from the allegations regarding torture for misappropriation of funds. The deceased has made an effort to absolve himself of the blame regarding misappropriation of money and ornaments. The suicide note, however, makes it clear that the proximate cause was the quarrel which took place on 12th during the course of which steps were taken to hand him over to the Police. Ignoring everything and accepting the prosecution case as it is, the suicide is admittedly committed in view of the quarrel on the earlier day regarding ornaments. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 not only threatened but approached Police as the ornaments were not returned by the deceased. It is not disputed by the prosecution that because of arrival of the police, the deceased left the house. Therefore, the threat of police action can be said to be the cause for commission of suicide. What is required to be shown is that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 intended that deceased should commit suicide. Material to establish this ingredient is absent. The approach adopted by petitioners 1 and 2 show that they were constrained to take recourse to the legal remedy available to them for obtaining their ornaments which were in the custody of the younger brother. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the threat of police action amounts to an instigation for commission of suicide. The threat can be construed as a motive for commission of suicide. However, there is nothing on record to show that the result was intended by petitioners 1 to 5. On the contrary, record shows that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were trying to recover their own ornaments from the deceased and for that purpose they proposed to pursue the legal remedy available to them. The material on record discloses that Nanasaheb and Ravindra had entreated Petitioner No. 1 not to approach the Police. It is not disputed that deceased fled from the house on noticing the approach of Police Officer, These facts show that all was not well and that the deceased was not willing to face police enquiry. Be that, as it may; ignoring all these facts even if it is assumed that because of threat of police action, the deceased has committed suicide, there is no material to show that this result was intended by any of the petitioners. Therefore, material on record taken at its face value does not disclose an essential ingredient of Section 306. As the material on record does not disclose abatement of suicide by the Petitioners, there is no justification for framing of charge in the present case. The trial if held, would be an exercise in futility. Thus, the impugned order cannot be upheld. The impugned order is, thus, quashed and set aside and the petitioners are discharged. Revision is thus allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause "D".