Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. On behalf of the Petitioners it is submitted that the alleged suicide note is vague as it accuses the petitioners that they revealed the information to journalists who published the News reports. It is contended that when an hypersensitive, depressed or mentally quite infirm person take a drastic step to end his life or a person commit suicide in utter fit of anger and emotion it can not be said that the suicide was abetted. Forest Officials in Pandharkawada were required to look after the Forest administration, perform duties to explore, regenerate and protect the forest in accordance with the sanctioned working plan. The Divisional Forest Officials are required to conduct Sale, Contract, supply material to department and the Public and to raise revenue and control the expenditure and to deal with the forest cases with requisite transparency. The accusations in the Charge-

The Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 107 of 2011 is a Range Forest Officer. He had worked only for five months under the deceased Gopal Kale, that too in two separate spells in the year 2009 and 2010.

The Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 108 of 2011 had been subordinate to the deceased and was appointed as Public Information Officer by the deceased himself and it was his official duty as such to furnish information required by members of Public. It is urged that even if the version of the prosecution is accepted as a gospel truth imputations made in suicide note can never be construed as an act of abetment to the deceased for to commit suicide or his extortion. It is absolutely illogical to say that the subordinate officer lower in authority would be in a position to mentally harass the superior officer when superior officer is able to take departmental action for disobedience, if any and use his power and authority and report for administrative action like suspension, transfer, etc. There was never any such report against the Petitioner Shri. Rajendra Tongo. On the contrary deceased had given outstanding report in favor of the Petitioner. The Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 109 of 2011 Shri. Potulwar is a Logging Officer at Pandharkawada and he was subordinate officer of Shri. Gopal Kale and had also worked as Information Officer under Right to Information Act. The Petitioners even assuming that they had supplied information to the journalists were acting within the course of discharge of their duties and never did anything which could engineer the suicide of Late. Shri Gopal Kale.

5. While considering the rival submissions in the light of material sought to be relied upon at the Bar, it must be noted that the term 'Abetment' means to instigate, urge forward, to provoke, to incite, or to encourage to do or to goad doing of an act. The materials collected in the Charge-sheet do not spell out the accusation of abetment. Suicide note alleges that the Petitioners were revealing the information to journalists who published the news reports imputing corrupt practices to the Forest Officials including the Petitioner Shri Rajan Tongo. In the present day information age it is normal that the watchful eye of the Media people Public servants are in the Media glare who may allege corruption in public offices for lack of transparency. No reasonable prudent and well balanced person would turn hypersensitive and to get depressed by anger or emotion to such an extent that he would ruin himself. The honest person can react with boldness to face the allegations and insist upon that the truth shall prevail. Learned APPs could not lay their hands on any material from the Charge-sheet to buttress the submissions against the Petitioners as advanced on behalf of the State.

Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful Result.