Girish Shantilal Shah v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

(4.2.5) On the basis of the statement of deceased Aatish the First Information Report (for short “FIR” for the sake of convenience) came to be registered under Section 324 and 506 of IPC on 7 th June, 2019, against the Petitioner. Shubham Talle 3 of 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc (5) On 8th June, 2019, the Informant- Aatish unfortunately died. On 8th June, 2019, the police recorded the statements of Aatish’s brother namely Omkar Ravindra Giribuwa, father -namely Ravindra Pandurang Giribuwa, Mother -namely Ranjana Ravindra Giribuwa and uncle - namely Bapuso Pandurang Giribuwa. These persons narrated the same story that was explained by the deceased Aatish while recording his complaint. However they averted that the Petitioner was responsible for the death of Aatish. On the next day, the police also recorded statements of Aatish’s sister -namely Yashshree Hemant Gosavi and brother-in-law Hemant Baban Gosavi who also ofered statements on the same line. (6) The Investigating Oicer conducted investigation by recording various statements, collected the documents and iled Charge-Sheet u/s 306, 324, 201 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner on 18th November, 2019. Consequently the case was committed to the Ld. Sessions Court, Kolhapur and was numbered as Sessions Case No. 11 of 2020. It is thus challenging the Charge-sheet, present Petition is iled by the Accused/Petitioner seeking dismissal of the charge-sheet at pre-trial stage, at-least to the extent of the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Shubham Talle 4 of 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc (7) Petitioner's Argument:- (7.1) Mr. Sutar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that from the plain reading of the Complaint that was lodged by the deceased Aatish himself, no case of abetment to suicide could be seen. He would further submit that deceased Aatish himself consumed the poison/pesticide under apprehension that he would be re-beaten. (7.2) He would further submit that the story of abetment of suicide is later developed by the statements dated 8th September, 2019 and 9th September, 2019 which were collected from the relatives of deceased Aatish. He would further submit that its a clear case where prosecution under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is nothing but an abuse of law. That if ofense itself is not made out from the Complaint itself, the Petitioner/Accused must not be made to undergo the entire trial for such ofense which is not at all made out from the plain reading of the Complainant. (7.3) Mr. Sutar further submits that the Charge Sheet also doesn’t show any ofense against the Petitioner to abate the suicide. That, the basis of the Charge Sheet is the complaint that was iled by the deceased Aatish. The investigation that was conducted pursuant to the complaint could not demonstrate a noticeable case u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Shubham Talle 5 of 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc (7.4) Mr. Sutar, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner lastly adds that statements gathered from the witnesses cannot make by themselves an ofense in the original Complaint that was iled by the deceased Aatish himself. (7.5) With this, Mr. Sutar for Petitioner would submit that Petition may be allowed at-least to the extent of ofense under Section 306 of IPC. (8) Respondent’s arguments:- (8.1) Mrs. Deshmukh, ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor would however object the Petition. She would submit that the ofence registered against the Petitioner is serious one wherein an innocent person has lost his life. She would further submit that the prosecution is absolutely hopeful that a positive case u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code could be established during the trial before the Ld. Sessions Court. She would further submit that it would be impermissible for the Petitioner to request to look into other documents except Complaint, and that in view of this Petition is liable to be dismissed. Last, but not the least Mrs. Deshmukh, APP would submit that Petitioner could gain acquittal only if prosecution fails to make out a case after leading evidence. (8.2) Mrs. Deshmukh would place reliance on the Charge Sheet and submit that there is suicient material on record to show prima facie case against the Petitioner u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code. Shubham Talle 6 of 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc CONSIDERATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS: (9) Present proceeding is iled u/a 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.PC’ for the sake of convenience) seeking termination of the charge and prosecution before the Petitioner undergoes the Trial itself. In the sense, this is a Petition wherein the Petitioner seeks exoneration Pre- Trial. (10) Hence, it would be necessary to look into the principles under which such a recourse would be permissible to the Petitioner to seek such Pre-Trial acquittal. (11) For that it would be beneicial to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in land mark case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1. In the said case after considering various relevant provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code at its Chapter-XIV as also by analyzing then prevailing case laws on the issues, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the power of High Court u/a 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of CRPC to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 1 [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] Shubham Talle 7 of 27 (12) The relevant portion from the said Judgment is reproduced as follows. WP-4683-2021 (J).doc “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly deined and suiciently channelized and inlexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the irst information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any ofence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the irst information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable ofence, justifying an investigation by police oicers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. Shubham Talle 8 of 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any ofence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable ofence but constitute only a non- cognizable ofence, no investigation is permitted by a police oicer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is suicient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is a speciic provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing eicacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala ide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." Shubham Talle 9 of 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc (13) In the light of above, we deem it appropriate to frame two points for our consideration i.e. (i) Whether the complaint and the material post investigation as they are, make out an ofence u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner? (ii) Whether continuation of the Trial against the Petitioner would serve the purpose of ‘justice’ or would constitute abuse of process? (14) Now we deal with the points framed by us for consideration. Both the points are interlinked and need to be discussed together. (15) In order to examine whether the Petitioner could make out any case under either of the above seven instances as described in Bhajan Lal (supra), we are required to go through the contents of the Complaint dated 7th June, 2019 that was iled by the deceased Aatish himself. (16) With the able assistance of both the ld. Counsels representing the parties we have minutely gone through the contents of the Complaint dated 7th June, 2019. The Complainant/deceased Aatish recorded his Complaint that over an issue of quantum of the reimbursement of loss, he was beaten by the Petitioner with hockey stick and was threatened to life of his family. That thereafter under the Shubham Talle 10 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc apprehension that he would be re-assaulted, in frightened state of mind he [deceased Aatish] consumed the pesticide which he was naturally carrying for the purpose of its utilization in his farm. (17) It is obvious that the statement recorded by the deceased himself was a natural statement instantly disclosing the very true fact and incidence that occurred in between the Petitioner and himself. (18) What we ind is that deceased Aatish accepted that he had caused some loss to the Petitioner and that he would reimburse the same. However later the Petitioner escalated the loss from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- where disagreement arose between the parties. For now let’s agree that the Petitioner beat the deceased with hockey-stick and threatened to cause harm to his family if Aatish fails to make good of the loss to him. However, it was the fear of being re-beaten that tempted Aatish to consume the pesticide. Its worth to note that natural possession of pesticide with the deceased Aatish is also explained by him only. (19) In the Complaint, deceased Aatish voluntarily stated that he was carrying the said pesticide for its use in his farm. Now two diferent terms i.e. ‘apprehension’ and ‘instigation/abatement’ need to be examined as the ‘states of minds’ qua acts of both the parties. Mere apprehension in the mind of the deceased may be of a result of any act of the accused, however that itself is not suicient to charge the Shubham Talle 11 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc accused for an ofence of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Section 306 necessarily requires to look into the alleged ofending act of the accused in terms of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows: “Section 107: Abatement 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 in order 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 willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to 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.” (20) Going clearly by the contents of the complaint, commission of physical assault by the Petitioner on the deceased and threat to cause danger to deceased’s family, doesn’t suggest that the Petitioner abated the deceased to commit suicide, nor remotely reveals the component of ‘mens rea’ in tempting, constraining or leaving the deceased with no choice other than to commit suicide. (21) As we observed above, as ‘apprehension’ is a state of deceased’s mind, ‘abatement or instigation’ is also required to be seen as a state Shubham Talle 12 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc of accused’s mind which must be backed by the basic principle of “mens rea” to make out a case u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code. At later part of our discussion, we shall refer to the iat containing guiding the principles laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court to identify the component of abatement, and an act with mens rea to constitute abatement u/s 107 of the Indian Penal Code. (22) After the deceased Aatish accepted his lapse for Rs. 60,000/-, the further controversial addition of Rs. 40,000/- by the Petitioner is the cause behind the unfortunate incidence. (23) Ms. Deshmukh, Ld. Asst. Public Prosecutor tried to convince us that mere act of the Petitioner in carrying Aatish to hospital won’t constitute his innocence to grant him the relief as is prayed. We do not have reasons to disagree with such argument. The Petitioner would certainly not be justiied in threatening the deceased as was complained nor would stand innocent by carrying Aatish to hospital itself. Such Pre-Trial termination of prosecution, is to be judged from the recitals of the complaint if they fail to make out any ofence as alleged. So far as Charge sheet is concerned, the investigation product would be a hurdle for the accused only if the contents of complaint is corroborated by the investigation which constitutes the ofence. (24) For want of any accusation in the complaint by the deceased Aatish against the Petitioner, we do not fathom Ld. APP’s argument Shubham Talle 13 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc that deceased Aatish was left with no choice than to commit suicide by the act on behalf of the Petitioner. Its diicult to comprehend with Prosecutions’ contention that the threat extended by the Petitioner would convince any prudent mind that it instigated or tempted Aatish to commit suicide. We have absolutely no doubt in our minds that the deceased was nowhere even suggested by the Petitioner in any terms which tempted/instigated, constrained him to commit suicide that too with mens rea behind such instigation. (25) The Complaint, if taken as it is, would at the most reveal that there was some dispute in between an employer and employee over quantum of the loss sustained by the employer due to employee’s lapse/fault. So far as the assault and the alleged threat are concerned those were extended by the Petitioner requiring the deceased to escalate the quantum of agreed loss of Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. As is observed supra, it was the frightened state of mind of the deceased Aatish or the sensitive state of mind of deceased Aatish, under which he consumed the pesticide. (26) At this juncture, it would be beneicial to refer the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in some land mark cases. In the case wherein Accused remarked the deceased “go and die”, and the deceased thereafter committed suicide the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in the case of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and another,2 as under : 2 [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438] Shubham Talle 14 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc “…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not relect the requisite means rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events….” (27) Re-iterating the law laid down in case of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and another (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latest case of Ayyub & Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr3 laid down deinite guiding observations. In this case the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had dismissed Petition of the Petitioner therein/Accused under Section 482 of CRPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court however, while allowing the Pre-Trial termination of the Prosecution of the Petitioner therein has observed as follows: “19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an ofence under Section 306 IPC, speciic abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an Intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide [See Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618].

#20. These principles have been reiterated recently by this Court in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76 3 2025 INSC 168 Shubham Talle 15 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc

#21. We ind none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record. The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased Tanu with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. The surrounding circumstances, particularly the prior lodgment of the FIR by the irst appellant against the family of Tanu for the death of his son Ziaul Rahman, does indicate an element of desperation on the part of the respondent no. 2 to somehow implicate the appellants. Reliance of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. belatedly on 07.11.2022, 08.11.2022 and 22.11.2022, only reinforces out suspicion viz. one-sided, partial and inimical investigation. Under these circumstances, proceeding with the trial against the appellants in the charge- sheet as iled will be a gross abuse of process.” (28) In the case in hand the contents of the First Information Report do not in itself indicate such Act of the Petitioner that led the deceased Aatish to commit suicide leaving him no option but to commit suicide. Even accepting that the Petitioner has beaten the deceased and has threatened his family that itself cannot be termed as an abetment to suicide. We have also gone through the Chargesheet and the investigation material. They do not create any situation where its desirable that the Petitioner must undergo the Trial. (29) Its advantageous for us to refer the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case known as Shenbagavalli & Ors vs. The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District & Anr4 4 2025 INSC 607 Shubham Talle 16 27 WP-4683-2021 (J).doc “15. Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a irst requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential, the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing. In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the ofense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. (M. Arjunan V. State represented by its inspector of Police5)

#16. Similarly, in the case of Ude Singh and Others V. State of Haryana 6, it has been observed in para 16 as follows: "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an ofence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an ofending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from 5 6