High Court
Legal Reasoning
1902 APPLN.4063.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.902 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4063 OF 2024Sunil S/o Bhagwan Maharumardane Age: 34 Years, Occu: Service R/o Village Lohari, Tq-Pachora, Dist-Jalgaon. At present R/o Military Hospital Vadodare, Fatehgunj C/o 56 APO, EME Campus, State of Gujrat.… ApplicantVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through, The Investigating Officer, Erandol Police Station, Jalgaon.2.Shriram S/o Rajaram Patil,Age 65 years, Occu- Agri R/o Hivarkheda Buddruk Tq- Jamner Dist-Jalgaon.… Respondents...Mr. Datta Ankush Madake, Advocate for Applicant.Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.Mr. Bhargav Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2. (Appointed)...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :11th July, 2025. Per Court :.Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out within twoweeks. 2902 APPLN.4063.2024.odt2Present application has been filed under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings inSessions Case No.89 of 2024, pending before the learned SessionsJudge, Jalgaon, arising out of FIR vide C.R. No.80 of 2022, dated 8thMay, 2022, registered with Erandol Police Station, District Jalgaon, forthe offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learnedAPP for applicant No.1 / State and the learned counsel appointed torepresent the cause of respondent No.2. 4The learned counsel appearing for the applicant, thelearned APP as well as learned counsel who has been appointed by usto represent the cause of respondent No.2, have taken us through theentire charge-sheet. The learned counsel for the applicant submitsthat the FIR was against an unknown person and the informant is thefather of the deceased. Prior to the registration of the offence, thehusband of the deceased had lodged AD. Vishwanath Patil is thehusband of the deceased Rupali. Rupali committed suicide byhanging on 23rd April, 2022. If we come to the AD that has beenregistered by the husband, then it can be seen that he was not presentin the house when the deceased committed suicide. Thereafter, the 3902 APPLN.4063.2024.odtFIR came to be registered belatedly on 8th May 2022, that too againstan unknown person, on the basis of suicide note, which has beenallegedly left by the deceased in the diary. The spot Panchanamawas executed between 17:15 hours to 18:10 hours on the same daythat is on 23rd April, 2022, making a reference to the suicide note. Lateron, the mobile of the deceased has been seized and in the statementof the husband recorded on 10th November, 2022. He states that onone day, he found that his wife was talking at late night with oneperson and at that time when he asked as to who is the other personon the phone, she tried to avoid to give the answer, but then he tookher mobile and then asked who is talking. He was told allegedly by thepresent applicant that he is a military person and the applicant gavehis name. When the husband asked the applicant as to why he istalking to his wife, then the present applicant disconnected the call.The husband says that when he made inquiry with the wife, she toldthat she got acquainted with the applicant on Facebook and they usedto talk on phone on some occasions. He then told that she should nottalk with the applicant thereafter. He had told the said fact to themother of the victim also and the mother of the victim has repeated thesame thing in her statement. Even if we take those statements as it is,it cannot be stated that any such act amounting to defamation of thevictim has been committed by the present applicant. There isabsolutely no evidence in the charge-sheet, which will amount to 4902 APPLN.4063.2024.odtabetment and therefore, it would be unjust to ask the applicant to facethe trial. 5The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance onthe decision of M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the DeputySuperintendent of Police Velmurugan and Anr, reported in, AIR2011 Supreme Court 1238, wherein it has been held as under:-“Abetment involves a mental process of instigating aperson or intentionally aiding a person in doing of athing. Without a positive act on the part of the accusedto instigate or aid in committing suicide, convictioncannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature isclear that in order to convict a person under Section306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit theoffence. It also requires an active act or direct act whichled the deceased to commit suicide seeing no optionand this act must have been intended to push thedeceased into such a position that he/she committedsuicide.”6The learned counsel for the applicant then relies on thedecision in Vikas Chandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,reported in, AIROnline 2024 SC 277, wherein it has been held thatwhen alleged suicide note did not refer to the alleged incident involvingdeceased and accused, either explicitly or implicitly, then there was no 5902 APPLN.4063.2024.odtmaterial showing that the accused had abetted deceased in a mannerwhich will attract the provisions of Section 107 of IPC. He furtherrelies on the decision of this Court in Vitthal Sambhajirao Gutte Vs.State of Maharashtra and Anr, reported in, AIROnline 2025 BOM218, wherein it was held that when there was no proximity betweenwrongful act committed by applicant and suicide committed bydeceased and there is failure to establish mens-rea even prima-faciethe ingredients of offence of abetment to commit suicide were notmade out. 7The learned APP and the learned counsel appointed torepresent the cause of respondent No.2 strongly opposed theapplication and they submit that, certainly in the suicide note, it hasbeen mentioned that the family members are not at fault, but thedeceased could not sustain her defamation. The learned appointedcounsel for respondent No.2 submits that the deceased might havechosen not to disclose the name in writing of the person who hasdefamed her, but certainly there might be some evidence in respect ofthe same in the mobile phone, which has been seized. The learnedAPP submits that the call record shows many phone calls those weremade and the FSL report is still awaited. They both submit that aspecific query has been made to the FSL and till the answers of thesame are given, this cannot be the fit case where the Court should 6902 APPLN.4063.2024.odtexercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 8At the outset, we would like to place a fact on record thatby order dated 13th June, 2025, when we had heard the learnedcounsel for the applicant for a while, we felt the need of the presenceof investigating officer, when the learned APP pointed out that thereport in respect of mobile phones, those have been seized, are yetawaited from the FSL, we could not find the detailed Panchanama orthe transcript of the alleged chatting which the learned APP was tryingto make out in the charge-sheet and therefore, we had asked theinvestigating officer to remain present. The investigating officer wasnot present on 25th June, 2025. However, we again directed theinvestigating officer to remain present. As per our directions, affidavitof the investigating officer i.e. Assistant Police Inspector, ShrigondaPolice Station, District Ahilyanagar, Mr. Ganesh s/o Kashinath Ahire,has been produced, wherein he has categorically admitted that he hasnot followed the directions given by this Court, whenever the devicesare required to be sent for forensic analysis to Forensic ScienceLaboratory. In this connection, we reiterate that in Criminal AppealNo.549 of 2019 and companion matters i.e. in Vaijinath S/o SominathRakh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, by order dated 10thJuly, 2019, this Court had given certain directions. Of-course, thosewere mainly in respect of CCTV footage, but they were also applicable 7902 APPLN.4063.2024.odtto the pen-drive and other electronic devices. A transcript of the sameshould be prepared by the investigating officer before sending suchdevices to FSL for analysis, was the gist of the direction. In fact, thelearned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court was directed to communicatethe decision to the Secretary, Home Department of the Government forcirculation of it, to all the Police Stations and other InvestigatingAgencies of the State so that the procedure as indicated in thedecision is followed. In spite of this position, it appears that thosedirections have not been followed. We would also like to add thatfollowing these directions is a must or mandatory in the scenario thatthere is huge pendency with the FSLs and time and again we arecoming across the delay in the reports. The trials are withheld and theconstitutional rights of the accused of speedy trial, which will also affectthe rights of the victim and the prosecution, are also affected. If thetranscripts are prepared in advance, then the investigating officerwould be in a position to take a decision as to whether the said devicesshould be sent for analysis or not. Unless there is something, whichwill be helpful in the investigation and the trial, there is no point insending such devices for analysis. It will only increase the pendencyof analysis with FSLs. Of-course, now at this stage, we are of theopinion that no advantage can be given of the said fact to theapplicant, but on the basis of whatever is on record, whether offence ismade out or not, has to be decided. 8902 APPLN.4063.2024.odt9We have already taken note of the legal requirements thatis required in an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. In addition to it,we rely on Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of MadhyaPradesh, reported in, 2002 Cri.L.J. 2796; Madan Mohan Singh Vs.State of Gujrat and another, reported in, (2010) 8 SCC 628; and inthe case of S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, reported in,2010 All MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.). 10The first and the foremost fact that is involved in thepresent case is that the deceased has allegedly left the suicide note.As on today, we take that the said chit is in the handwriting of thedeceased, we reproduce the translation of said suicide note for thesake of further discussion:-“I, Rupali, am ending my life. It is not the fault of myfamily. I could not bear the defamation done to me by anunknown person. I have a purse put up near the God’splace, in which all my earnings are for my daughter andson. My obeisance(bow down) to my parents, my lastfarewell to my sister. Please take care of my children.This is my last request. I wanted to do a lot for my childrenin life.. I finally lost..........”11Thus, it is to be noted that only sentence, which can be 9902 APPLN.4063.2024.odtsaid to be related to her death is “ माझीअज्ञातव्यक्तीनेकेलेलीबदनामीमीसहन ”नाहीकरुशकले. She could not withstand her defamation by unknownperson, was her say, but the said suicide note is so cryptic that it isneither disclosing the identity of the person who defamed her nor itdisclosed whether she has been defamed and by which means. Whatwas the material, which amounted to her defamation, has not beenstated in the suicide note. Therefore, on the basis of this crypticreason or statement, we cannot take the said suicide note as a pieceof document, which can be said to be admissible as per Section 32(1)of the Indian Evidence Act. The circumstances, which wereresponsible for the cause of death should have been clearly disclosed,then only such a note can be said to be admissible in evidence.Therefore, even in this prima-facie stage also, we cannot giveimportance to the said suicide note. 12As aforesaid, the FIR is against an unknown person.During the investigation, the statements of witnesses have beenrecorded and interestingly the FIR has been lodged on 8th May, 2022and the statement of the husband of the deceased has been recordedon 10th November, 2022 i.e. after about six months and then he saysthat on one day he could notice late-night conversation between hiswife and the applicant. It is not the case of the prosecution that in spiteof caution given to the deceased by her husband, parents etc., still the
Decision
10902 APPLN.4063.2024.odtdeceased went on talking with the applicant late night. Even if for thesake of argument, it is accepted that she was talking with the applicanton phone, yet none of these witnesses have stated that they had evercame to know that the applicant had defamed the deceased. In hisstatement, the husband of the deceased states that deceased haddisclosed to him that she got acquaintance with the present applicanton Facebook. There was no hurdle for the investigating officer tocheck the Facebook account of the deceased. There is absolutely noattempt on his part. The said conversation or posts on the Facebookcan be read from other device also and for that purpose, mobile phoneof the deceased is not a precondition. Now, as regards the call detailsare concerned, at the most it would show that there were callsbetween two persons. However, it will not suggest any such actamounting to defamation, because the defamation of a person can bemade to another person and not to the person himself or herself. 13Thus, taking into consideration the entire material in thecharge-sheet, we hold that the material is not sufficient to attract theingredients of Section 107 or 306 of the IPC. The investigating officerhas absolutely not handled the investigation properly. It appears thathe himself is not techno-savvy and therefore, he could not collect anyevidence. Now, the applicant cannot be asked to face the trial withsuch material and also cannot be asked to wait till the FSL report or for 11902 APPLN.4063.2024.odta better investigation. It would affect his fundamental rights. This is afit case where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of theCr.P.C. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application stands allowed.II.The proceedings in Sessions Case No.89 of 2024,pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon,arising out of FIR vide C.R. No.80 of 2022, dated 8thMay, 2022, registered with Erandol Police Station,District Jalgaon, for the offence punishable underSection 306 of the Indian Penal Code, standsquashed and set aside as against the applicant.III.The fees of Mr. Bhargav Kulkarni, learned counselappointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten ThousandOnly) and it is to be paid through the High Court LegalServices Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga