the Supreme Court, wherein it was held: "In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation."


THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU              

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6309 of 2012  

27-08-2012

Dr.K.Ramesh

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.Vedula Srinivas

Counsel for the Respondent:  Public Prosecutor

 <Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
(2009) 16 Supreme Court Cases 605

ORDER :
        The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.
He is a canal contractor.  The deceased took canal work from the accused on sub-
contract basis and was executing the work by engaging coolies and by investing
Rs.30,000/- per week.  It is alleged that since 4 weeks the accused failed to
pay work bills of the deceased to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and the coolies were
going round house of the deceased for their amounts and that therefore the
deceased approached the accused and asked him to pay the amount due for the
canal work in order to pay the same to the coolies and that the accused
threatened the deceased saying he is not going to pay any amount to the deceased
and if the deceased is not in a position to pay the amount to the coolies, the
accused instigated the deceased to die himself.  According to the prosecution,
the said utterances are motive for the offence.  Ultimately the deceased became
vexed with attitude of the accused and committed suicide by hanging with the
help of rope and died.  The petitioner, except filing copy of the bare charge
sheet, did not place any other prosecution record like statements of witnesses
and other documents on which the prosecution intends to rely upon during trial
of the case.  It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that death note said
to have been left by the deceased was found to be not in the hand writing of the
deceased as per hand writing expert opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory.
Copy of the death note is not placed before this Court.
        2) The petitioner's counsel placed reliance on Chitresh Kumar Chopra V.
State (Government of NCT of Delhi)1 of the Supreme Court, wherein it was held:
"In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person,
it has to be established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or
wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased
reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission
or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward
direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the
deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above.  Undoubtedly,
presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
        It is contended that in order to constitute instigation, there must be
consistent and persistent conduct either by words or deeds pushing the deceased
to take decision to end his life and that such continuous activity is not
alleged on the part of the accused in the present case and that single utterance
by the accused will not constitute instigation as contemplated under Section 107
I.P.C in order to become abetment (to commit suicide).  In my opinion,
continuous conduct either by words or deeds is required in case those words or
deeds do not directly indicate death or suicide to the deceased.  But, if the
utterance by words is direct, in the sense, that the said words directly address
the deceased to do a particular act leading towards death or suicide, then even
single utterance in that direction by the accused towards the deceased would
constitute abetment under Section 107 I.P.C in order to mulct criminal liability
under Section 306 I.P.C.  In a particular case, whether the words or deeds have
direct effect or indirect effect on mind of the deceased, would be a question of
fact which the trial Court has to consider having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and evidence to be let in by the prosecution as well
as the defence during trial.  This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot find in
this case that the allegations alleged against the accused do not amount to an
offence under Section 306 I.P.C.  It is a matter for trial.
        4) Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

_______________________________  
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J      
August 27, 2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515