Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Threatening the deceased with dire consequences cannot be termed as abetment to suicide: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court observed that making threat to the deceased, asking him to see in future itself would not constitute the offence of abetment to commit suicide.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV heard the petition filed by Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav.

The application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by applicant to quash the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, DAA, Mahoba whereby the trial Court dismissed the discharge application moved by applicant under Section 227 for discharging him in the alleged sections and charge has been directed to be framed under Sections 306, 504 and 506 against the applicant and other co accused.

Main Prayer in the application is as under:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Court may graciously be pleased to allow the application and set aside the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No1/Special Judge, D.D.A, Mahoba in Sessions Case No291 of 2021, (State Vs Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No 65 of 2021, under Sections 306, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar (Mahoba), District Mahoba whereby the learned Court below has rejected the discharge application under Section 227 CrPC of applicant.”

The order has been assailed by the accused-applicant mainly on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry. He is not concerned with the crime. He has committed no offence. Prosecution story is false and fake. He neither tortured the victim/deceased nor demanded/took any money. He never instigated the victim to commit suicide. There is no role of the applicant in committing suicide of the victim. Accused-applicant has no concern at all with the present case. Counsel contends that no offence, as alleged, is made out.

From the side of opposite parties, application under Section 482 CrPC has been opposed by alleging that accused-applicant is man of criminal antecedents, and a number of criminal cases have been registered against him. He operates a gang of criminals.

Prior to the incident, the accused-applicant demanded/ took some money from the son of victim/deceased who lodged an FIR against the applicant and some other persons under Section 386 IPC in the police station concerned. When the police took no action, victim/deceased has decided to end his life and committed suicide by way of shooting himself with his licency rifle, which is alleged to be used in incident, was found on spot and suicide note allegedly written by victim himself was also recovered by the police from the spot.

It is further stated that the Investigating Officer has collected credible evidence like suicide note, previous FIR and CCTV clip and statements of witnesses who have verified the prosecution versions. The Investigating Officer has rightly submitted a charge sheet against the applicant and other accused persons and no illegality in the same.

It was further alleged that accused-applicant is habitual offender having long criminal history of heinous crime like murder, dacoity, extortion etc. in order to take goonda tax. He started threatening to the brother of opposite party no 2 and took huge amount from him, when the victim/deceased came to know the fact of goonda tax taken by the accused-applicant, objected the same and lodged an FIR under Section 386 IPC bearing case but the local police did not take any action against such applicant, due to which victim/deceased reached the position to commit suicide.

Investigating Officer rightly filed a charge sheet under the alleged section. So far as the criminal history against the victim/deceased is concerned, he was implicated by local enemies and the victim was acquitted by the Court. There was sufficient ground to frame the charge against the accused applicant. The Trial Court rightly passed the order of framing charge which has no illegality or irregularity.

The Court noted, “In response to the ground taken by the opposite parties, from the side of the accused-applicant, it has been stated that statements of the informant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are contradictory and Investigating Officer without conducting fair and impartial investigation and collecting credible evidence, submitted charge sheet in the matter and trial Court illegally rejected the discharge application.

“There was nothing on record to frame the charge against the applicant and in all the cases previously registered against the applicant, either the applicant has been acquitted by the Court or the cases have been withdrawn by the State Government or accused applicant on bail. All the cases registered against him are totally false due to political rivalry as he is in active politics.

From the aforesaid discussions, it is evident that the deceased perceived harassment by the applicant as he was threatened to see in future or false implication under Section 376 IPC. There is nothing on record to suggest any mens-rea for instigating or abetting the suicide by the applicant.

The suicide note, as has been extracted herein above, even does not remotely suggest that the accused-applicant had any intention to aid, instigate or abate the deceased to commit suicide. Making threat to the deceased, asking him to see in future or implication in criminal case of IPC by itself would not constitute the offence of abetment to commit suicide. There is no evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to suggest that the applicant intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

“The Court is of the view that all ingredients of instigation of abetment to commit suicide are completely absent in the material collected during the course of investigation and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused-applicant has committed any offence under Section 306 IPC. There is no offending action proximate to the time of occurrence on part of the applicant, which would have led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide.

“Perceived of harassment by the deceased in the hands of the accused-applicant cannot be a ground for invoking the offence under Section 306 IPC as it cannot be said that the accused-applicant has abetted the commission of suicide by playing any active role or by an act of instigation or doing certain act to facilitate commission of suicide. While framing the charge, the Trial Court has not appreciated the judgment cited in the body of impugned order in the right perspective and it misinterpreted the judgment.

“In the light of facts and circumstances of the case, allegation made against the applicant, evidence collected by the prosecution and the aforesaid discussions, the Court is of the view that the application is liable to be allowed,” the Court observed.

“The order dated 08.10.2021, and the further proceedings thereof against the applicant are quashed. Applicant is discharged from the offence alleged”, the Court ordered.


News Update