The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ANUGANTI PRANEETH, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF -ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVV! DI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL P ETITIO N No.14269 of)024 DATED: 18rH DECEMBER 202 I Between Shaik Reshma AND Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor and another Respondents ORDER This Crrminal petition is filed by the petit cner_accused No 3 seeking to quash the proceedings er1 tainst her in S.C.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the lear red principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, regir; ered for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short ,lpC,). 02 Heard Sri Anuganti praneeth, learne I counsel for the petltioner-accused and Sri M.Ramachir rdra Reddy, learned Additional public prosecutor for the State_ respondent No.1. Even after service of r otice. none 2 ( appeared on behalf of unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record 03(a). The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: One Smt.Pasupunuti @ Chatla Thirumaleshwari, Wo.Sampath (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), WAS working as a Junior Lecturer at TSWRS (Girls), Chennur. The accused Nos. 1 to 5 are her colleagues working in the same institution During the course of her employment, the deceased was entrusted with additional charge as Mess ln-Charge. Owing to the said additional responsibility, the deceased was allegedly under mental stress and was suffering from depression. On 15.1O.2O23 at about 17:00 hours, the deceased telephoned her husband and informed him that her colleagues,'namely the accused Nos.1 to 5, were subjecting her to mental harassment 03(b). Upon receiving the said information, the husband of the deceased immediately went to the college, discussed the matter with the accused No.'l , and thereafter took the deceased to their residence. On 16.10.2023 at 3 about 06:00 hours, the husband of the dec: rsed dropped her at the school. Thereafter, the deceasecl proceeded to Pedda Cheruvu, Chennur. Being unable to :ope with the alleged work pressure and mental stress. s; re committed suicrde by drowning in pedda Cheruvu. 03(c). At about 0g:00 hours on the sa me day, the husband of the deceased attempted to contact her over the phone, however, she did not respond. He then ,:ontacted the schoor staff to enquire about her whereabcrts and was informed that she had not reported to duty. li tbsequenfly, when he again dialed the deceased,s mobi r phone, an unknown person answered the call and informei him that the deceased's mobire phone and bag were founc near pedda Cheruvu, Chennur and at about 09:30 hours, th: husband of the deceased rushed to pedda Cheruvu, Chenrr r, where he found the dead body of the deceased. The deari body of the deceased was shifted to the Community He; lth Centre, chennur, where the duty doctor examined the dt..;eased and declared that she was brought dead. Thert: rfter, upon verifying the mobile phone of the deceased, tr: husband 4 { found certain voice recordings, wherein the deceased stated that the accused Nos.1 to 5 had mentally tortured and harassed her. On the basis of the said allegations, it is contended that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 had committed offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC 04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused No.3 has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences. lt is contended that the petitioner- accused No.3 was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in the year 2023. ln the 9th Zonal Level Sports Meet for the year 2023-24 from 13.10.2023 to 1610 2023, the petitioner was included in the Transportation Committee and the deceased was included in the Food Committee. The petitioner and the deceased were in different committees and there was no occasion for them to work together and the petitioner had no role in the suicide committed by the deceased. ln the absence of proximate live link between the petitioner-accused No.3 and the deceased, in connection wtth the death of the deceased. There is nothing to indicate 5 that there was instigation or abetment by :he petitioner- accused No.3 which had driven the dece ased to take extreme step of committing suicide. The l: tlice filed the charge sheet without proper investigation ar C there is no incriminating material against the petitioner.i ccused No.3. There are no essential ingredients required f >r constituting the alleged offence under Section 306 read rv th Section 34 of IPC 04(b) With the above submissions, learn rd counsel for the petitioner-accused while praying for the luashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioner-;::cused No.3, relied upon a decision of the Honourable Sup eme Court in M.Arjunan v. State represenfed by its nspector of Policel wherein it was held at paragraph No g I rat: "(B) The essenfia/ ingredients of the offence Seclion 306 l.P.C. are (i) the abetment; 1;r intention of the accused to aid or instigate or ab, deceased to commit suicide. The act of the ac,: however, insulting the deceased by using a,s language will not, by itself , constitute the abetn,t suicide. There should be evidence capaL,l suggestrng that the accused intended by such t 'nder t the rsed, nt of ct to rCnminal Appeal No(s).1550of 2018(Arisingoutof SLP(Crt.)No.3 82 ot 2L 6) 6 instigate the deceased to commit suicide. lJnless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Seclion 306 l.P.C."

05. On the other hand, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court

06. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract Section 306 of lPC, which reads AS "306. Abetment of suicide.. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either desciption for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

07. lt is clear that Section 306 of IPC pertains to the offence of abetment of suicide and comprises two essential ingredients. firstly, that a person has committed suicide; and secondly, that such suicide was abetted by another person 7 through instigation, conspiracy, or intentionzr aid. The existence of a direct or live proximate link tr rtween the alleged abetment and the act of suicide is a sine 1ua non for attracting this provision

08. lt is manifest from the record that ttt I deceased and the petitioner-accused No 3 were working i t the same institution and were assigned to different ccr lmittees in connection with the 9th Zonal Level Sports l/:et for the academic year 2023-24, held from 13.10.2023 tc 16.10.2023 The cardinal principle governing an offence urt ler Section 306 of IPC is that there must exist a close, direct, and proximate link between the alleged act of instil;; rtion by the accused and the commission of suicide by the deceased Such proximity must be of a compelling nat lre, clearly establishing an unequivocal nexus between I te conduct attributed to the petitioner-accused No.3 ancl the act of suicide. Mere allegations relating to workloe d or work pressure, rn the absence of any specific, pro 'imate, and overt act of incitement or instigation, are legally r sufficient to constitute the offence of abetment. Notably, here is no I material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner_accused No.3 had any recent contact or interaction with the deceased in a manner that could be construed as amounting to abetment. ln the absence of any cogent material disclosing a live and proximate link between the conduct of the petitioner-accused No.3 and the alleged suicide, the foundational ingredients necessary to attract the offence under Section 306 lpC are conspicuously absent. 09 A careful perusal of the entire record reveals that when the husband of the deceased attempted to contact her over the phone, the call was answered by an unknown person, who informed him that the handbag and mobile phone of the deceased were found at pedda Cheruvu. However, despite the material relevance of this person to the prosecution case, the investigating agency failed to examine him or record his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The failure to examine such a crucial witness constitutes a serious lapse in the investigation and goes to the root of the matter. The testimony of this witness was vital to determine whether the death of the deceased I was suicidal, accidental, or otherwise. Const quently, such an omission is fatal to the case of the proseculi ln '10. Furthermore, to attract the offence rnder Section 306 read with Section 34 of lPC, there must t,r incriminating material establishing the existence of a corr non intention among the accused persons to abet the : >mmission of suicide. A perusal of the material on record, i owever, does not disclose any such incriminating evidence c onnecting the petitioner-accused No 3 to the death of the de: :ased by way of suicide Significantly, the investigating agt ncy has also failed to collect or place on record any call letail records from the authenticated service providers to de.r ronstrate any incriminating communication attributable to t re petitioner- accused No 3. ln the absence of such materral the essential ingredients required to constitute the offences : leged are not made out

11. On a careful perusal of the recorr, it does not disclose any overt act of instigation, pres )nce of live proximate link, or intentional aid, or active partic pation on the 10 .X part of the petitioner-accused No.3 that can be directly linked to the act of alleged suicide by the deceased. Even if the contents of the charge sheet are taken at face value and presumed to be true, they do not satisfy the foundational ingredients of abetment as defined under Section '1 07 of lPC, and as such, fall short of attracting the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC

12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no incriminating material whatsoever to construe that the death of the deceased attributable to any culpable conduct, intentional aid, instigation, or active participation on the part of the petitioner-accused No.3. ln the absence of any cogent and legally admissible material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of lPC, compelling the petitioner-accused to undergo the rigour of trial would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law. 11 'l 3. ln view of the above discussion, tr s Court is of the firm opinion that the essential ingredienl: required to constitute the offence punishable under Sec:i tn 306 read with Section 34 of lpC are not made out against the petitioner-accused No.3. As such, the co rtinuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner_acr; rsed No.3 is wholly untenable and liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is; allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner_il;cused No 3 in S.C.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the learr :d principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, are herel: r quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous a611 rlicatrons, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SJ. M. NAGAMANI ASSISI-, rNT REGISTRAR SE CTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. .)

4. The Principal Assistant sessions Judge, Mancherial, lManctrt rial District. The S.H.O., Chennur police Station, Mancherial Disirict. One CC to SRt. ANUGANTT PRANEETH nOvocate iOpuCt Two CCs to PUBLIC at Hyderabad [OUT]. 'ROSECUTOR, Two CD Copies d High Court foithe Stzrt : of Tetangana

5. Pk/Sa HIGH COURT DATED:1811212025 CRLP.No.14269 of 2024 ) i \F\E s iA) " L)':" ( 3 ?lJAN2o2[ I I t CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED. I'& ol A