1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 643 OF 2009
1. Mandakini Kiran Landge, Age Petitioners
20 years, Occupation Household,
Resident of Madhi, Taluka
Pathardi, District Ahmednagar.
2. Hirabai Jagannath Markad,
Age 65 years, Occupation
Household, Resident of Madhi,
Taluka Pathardi, District
Ahmednagar.
3.
Dadasaheb Rambhau @
Bhaurao Bhapse, Age 34 years,
Occupation Veterinary Doctor.
Resident of nimbodi, Taluka
Pathardi, District Ahmednagar
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra Respondents
2. Shripat Chandrakant Landge,
Age 28 years, Occupation
Service, Resident of Shikrapur,
Taluka Shirur, District Pune.
Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent No.1 / State
Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the respondent No.2
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.
DATED : 4th May, 2010
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, Writ
Petition is taken up for final hearing.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:55:18 :::
2
2. Heard.
3. This Writ Petition is filed for quashing of the criminal
proceedings started against the petitioners pursuant to the complaint
dated 31st May, 2009, lodged at Pathardi, Police Station, District
Ahmednagar. The police registered offence under Sections 306, 504,
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code pursuant to the
complaint against the petitioners. After registration of the offence, the
police completed investigation and sent a charge-sheet against the
petitioners and that the case is now pending before the Sessions
Court, Ahmednagar.
4. On perusal of the entire charge-sheet, following material
emerges against the petitioners.
The petitioner No.1 was wife of one Kiran Landge, the
petitioner No.2 is the mother of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner
No.3 is the brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1. Kiran, the husband
of the petitioner No.1 committed suicide on 29th May, 2009.
After the marriage of deceased Kiran and the petitioner
No.1 in the month of April, 2008, the petitioner No.1 came to reside at
village Pimpalgaon Landga, Taluka Ahmednagar. Five to six months
after their marriage, the father of the petitioner No.1 died at village
Madhi, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. The petitioner No.1,
thereafter, started asking Kiran that they would stay at village Madhi
to look after the agricultural field of her father (the petitioner No.1 has
no brother). The petitioners No. 2 and 3 also started pressurizing
Kiran that he should go and reside at village Madhi and look after the
agricultural field of the petitioner No.1’s father. But, Kiran did not want
to go and stay there. In the meantime, the petitioner No.1 became
pregnant, and in the advance stage of pregnancy in March, 2009, she
was sent to village Madhi, as per the custom. On 22nd April, 2009, the
petitioner No.1 delivered a girl child. On 20th May, 2009, Kiran’s
parents Chandrakant and Chandrakala met with an accident. They
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:55:18 :::
3
fell from a motorcycle. Kiran’s mother Chandrakala sustained fracture
to her hand and became immobile. In view of this difficulty, Kiran’s
parents and family members requested the petitioners No. 2 and 3 to
send the petitioner No.1 back to village Pimpalgaon Landga so that
she would take care of the family members. The petitioners, it
seems, refused to abide by this request, and it seems, they
demanded that Kiran should come and take his wife and child away.
5. It seems, between 20th May to 29th May, a lot of pressure
was put to deceased Kiran from both the sides of his family, and
ultimately, on 29th May, 2009, Kiran started making phone calls to his
father and brother that he would suicide at the threshold of the house
of the petitioners, and, they should come and pick up his dead body.
This was indeed a serious threat. It also indicates his state of mind.
At that time, he was most probably frustrated and depressed due to
the conflicting situation he was caught in. (There is an indication on
record that Kiran issued similar threat to the petitioners on that day by
making a phone call at the land line number of the petitioners’ house.)
It seems, Kiran, on 29th May, as per his threat, proceeded to village
Madhi, consumed poisonous substance and went to the house of the
petitioners at village Madhi. He was found at the threshold of the
house of the petitioners in serious condition. He was unconscious,
froth was coming from his mouth. When the petitioner No.2 noticed
him lying in front of her house, she immediately called an auto-
rikshaw and shifted him to a hospital. Kiran died on the same day.
6. The question is, whether the petitioners can be accused
of abetting Kiran’s suicide. The answer is in negative.
Section 306 reads as under :
306. Abetment of suicide – If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:55:18 :::
4
Section 107 reads as under :
107. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of
a thing, who –
First – Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly – Engages with one or more other person or persons
in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and inorder to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1 – A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,
or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is boundto disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of
that thing.
Having regard to the provisions of Section 107 of the Indian Penal
Code, the prosecution has to prima facie show that the petitioner No.1
had instigated Rani to commit suicide or he had intentionally aided by
any act the suicide of Rani.
The Law on this subject is discussed in a Judgment of
Kerala High Court in the case of Cyriac s/o Devassai & Anr. Vs.
Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy & Anr. ( 2006 All MR (Cri)
Journal 27).
If a person commits suicide as instigated by another the
following facts will be involved. The person who instigates
the deceased to commit suicide must do some act by words,
deed or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful
silence, in order to irritate or annoy the deceased until he
reacted. Or, the person who instigates the deceased must push
or force the deceased by deed, words, or wilful omission or
conduct which may even be a wilful silence to make the
deceased to move forward more quickly in a particular
direction. Or, he must strongly persuade or advise the other to
do some act. While acting so, the person who instigates the
other must also have the intention to provoke, incite, urge or
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:55:18 :::
5
encourage the latter to commit suicide.
13 – In short, in order to prove that the accused abetted
commission of suicide of a person, prosecution has to establish
the following factors ; (1) that the accused kept on irritating or
annoying the deceased bywords, deed or wilful omission or
conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased
reacted; or, that the accused strongly advised or persuaded the
deceased to do something; or pushed or forced the deceased by
deed, words or wilful omission or conduct which may even be
a wilful silence to make the deceased to move forward more
quickly in a forward direction (2) that the accused had the
intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the deceased to
commit suicide, while acting in the manner stated above…
The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State
of A.P. (2010 All MR (Cri) 615) held that clear mens rea to commit
offence must be present for proving the abetment of suicide. The
Supreme Court held as under :
“20. Abetment involves a mental proces of instigation a person
or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid incommitting suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.”
The Supreme Court also held that it is not possible to lay down any
formula in dealing with such cases.
On the face of it, therefore, even though the entire
prosecution case is accepted as it is, the petitioners by putting
pressure on the Kiran did not commit any physical act with mens rea
that their act/s would lead or incite or guide Kiran to commit suicide.
Thus the offence of abetment of suicide is not made out against the
petitioners. Besides, there is nothing on record to show that the
petitioners / accused had committed offences punishable under
Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal code.
7. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2
Mr. Jadhavar asserted that at this belated stage it would not be proper
for this Court to interfere in the criminal proceedings, which is now
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:55:18 :::
6
pending for trial. He suggested that the petitioners/accused can
certainly make an application for discharge and get redressal of their
grievance. The Law on this subject is laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another V. Special
Judicial Magistrate and others ( AIR 1998 Supreme Court 128 )
and in the case of G. Sagar Suri and another V. State of U.P. and
others ( AIR 2000 Supreme Court 754). There is no prohibition of
using the powers of High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India even if
the trial is about to begin and even if the petitioners have alternate
remedy of seeking discharge. This, in my view, is really a grave case
where the petitioners are wrongly implicated by the complainant and
the police. They deserve redressal immediately, and so, I am utilizing
powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
the criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2010.
ORDER
Crime No. I – 121 of 2009 of Pathardi Police Station and
the Sessions Case No. 36 of 2010 pending before the
Sessions Court, Ahmednagar stands quashed and set
aside.
Rule made absolute.
sd/-
(A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)
srm/criwp/643/09/ok
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:55:18 :::