ORDER:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11858 of 2010
1 This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.650 of 2010 on the file of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar.
2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC. He further submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet lack basic ingredients of Section 107 IPC; therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is not justifiable.
3 On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet prima facie constitute the offence alleged.
4 A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is facing trial in S.C.No.650 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. As per the allegations made in the charge sheet, one Ramulamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) is the second wife of one Sivalingam. Out of lawful wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter, who is aged about 8 years. As per the allegations made in the charge sheet, the petitioner developed illicit intimacy with the deceased. While so, on 01.01.2010 the petitioner, taking advantage of the absence of the family members of the deceased, went to her house and abused her in filthy language suspecting that the deceased developed illicit intimacy with some other person also and took away her cell phone. It is further alleged that the sister of the deceased, who is the de-facto complainant, on coming to know about the incident, approached the petitioner and took back the cell phone of the deceased.
5 It is further alleged that due to the words uttered by the petitioner, the deceased felt humiliated and insulted and committed suicide by consuming Organophosphate Insecticide Poison on 03.01.2010.
6 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased committed suicide three days after the alleged incident. No doubt, the court has to take into consideration the proximity of time between the alleged incident and the date of commission of offence. Merely because the deceased committed suicide three days after the alleged incident by itself is not a legally valid ground to quash the proceedings. The Court has to take into consideration various other factors. In a similar set of facts, the Hon’ble apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Surinder Kumar held at Para No.4 as under:
4. On the basis of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the police statement, the trial Court framed charge against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. The respondent challenged framing of the charge by filing a revision petition in the High Court. It was allowed by the High Court on the ground that the suicide was committed 20 days after he was accused of stealing 10 gm of gold. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in quashing the charge at that stage holding that the suicide was not as a result of abetment by the respondent. Whether it was so or not will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence which the prosecution may present before the Court.
7 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the case cited supra, I am of the considered view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand.
8 The next question that falls for consideration is whether the deceased committed suicide due to humiliation caused by uttering of the words by the petitioner.
9 To substantiate the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the following decisions.
i. Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
ii. Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarath wherein the Hon’ble apex Court held as under:
“……….In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306, IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.”
10 As per the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, mere uttering of words in a fit of anger, would not amount to intentional instigation. If the allegations made in the FIR do not constitute the offence alleged, the Court can quash the proceedings. 11 In the above light of facts and circumstances, this Court is also placing reliance on Chitresh Kumar Chopta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) wherein the apex Court held at para Nos.14 to 19 as under:
14. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the allegations levelled against the appellant in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigations, would attract any one of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC?
15. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in the IPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by this Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.
16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition).
18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar's case (14 supra), where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
12 As per the principle enunciated in the case cited supra, if the accused creates a circumstance of such a nature that the deceased has no other alternative except to commit suicide, instigation may be inferred.
13 As per the allegations made in the charge sheet, the petitioner uttered the following words:
ఏ లంజ , క ఎవళ అక మ సంబంధం టు న వట, !ను"
#$%&తు రట.
ఆ లంజ* క ఎవళ అక మ సంబంధం టు న *.
14 It is a known fact that each and every individual may not react in the same manner in all circumstances. A person, who reacts in a particular passion on a trivial issue, may not react in the same passion in some other circumstances. The trauma, likely to be undergone by a woman, against whom character assassination words are uttered, is inexplicable. The reaction of a woman in a given set of circumstance depends upon her family back ground, educational qualification as well as socio economic conditions.
15 Intention is a mental element, which can be decided after full fledged trial only. An intention can be gathered from the surrounding circumstances. The act of the petitioner uttering the alleged words is nothing but assassination of character of the deceased. The petitioner is alleged to have uttered the above words suspecting that the deceased developed illicit intimacy with some other person. The deceased is no way connected with the petitioner except having alleged extra marital relationship with him. Even assuming without conceding that the deceased has illicit intimacy with some body else, whether the petitioner is justified in making such allegation is one of the crucial questions to be considered by the Court.
16 The various queries raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner involve complexity of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
17 In Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and
others the Hon’ble apex Court held as under:
“In a proceeding instituted on a complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case in which complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. There is no need to analyse each and every aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. The statement of witnesses made on oath to be verified in full and materials put forth in the charge sheet ought to be taken note of as a whole before arriving any conclusion. It is the material concluded during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused persons.”
18 The material placed before the Court is, prima facie, sufficient to proceed further against the petitioner.
19 In Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“At the outset the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of inherent power of the High Court, which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions.
1. That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
2. That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
3. That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.”
20 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this pre trial stage.
21 For the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending in this Criminal Petition, if any, shall stand closed.
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.
Date: 06 November, 2014.
Kvsn