Tuesday 14 April 2015

Whether Departmental authority can be held liable for abetment of suicide by holding delinquent guilty in enquiry?

It is possible that some persons who might have been 
against   the   deceased   tried   to   take   advantage   of   the   complaint 
lodged by Babybai Jadhav, and create a big uproar regarding the 
incident   resulting   in   loss   of   reputation   of   the   deceased.     The 

deceased, as a result of this, was apparently feeling humiliated.  If 
the   deceased   has   taken   the   step   of   putting   an   end   to   his   life 
because of loss of reputation, and the humiliation felt by him on 
account of being subjected to a departmental enquiry, it is indeed 
unfortunate but, that by itself would not render the petitioner – 
and even the other accused – to be prosecuted on the allegation of 
having abetted the commission of suicide by the said Shivaji Gade.
The   requisite  mens   rea   –  atleast   on   the   part   of   the 
petitioner – is clearly lacking in this case.
The parameters of criminal liability are well settled. 
Merely because a suicide has been committed and taking of such 
extreme   step   by   the   deceased   is   attributed   to   the   acts   of   some 
persons,   such   persons   would   not   be   liable   to   be   prosecuted   as 
abettors to the suicide.
There must be some indication of the requisite  mens 
rea on their part before they can be successfully prosecuted.


CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.825 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Sanjay Kumar K. Shinde
Versus
The State of Maharashtra

CORAM :   ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1085
DATED  :    10th DECEMBER 2014.




The petitioner is one of the accused – Accused no.3 ­ 
in   Sessions   Case   No.47   of   2012,   pending   before   the   Court   of 
Sessions at Nashik.  There are totally five accused in the said case, 
including the applicant.  The allegation against the applicant, and 
the   other   accused   is   that   they   have   committed   an   offence 
punishable under section 306 of the IPC read with section 34 of 
the   IPC.   The   petitioner   and  the   other   accused  had  applied  for 
discharge,   as   contemplated   under   section   227   of   the   Code   of 
Criminal   Procedure   (for   short   'the   Code'),   but   the   discharge 
application   was   rejected   by   the   learned   Addl.   Sessions   Judge 
before   whom   the   trial   of   the  case   is  pending.   Being  aggrieved 
thereby,   the   petitioner   has   approached   this   Court   invoking   its 
constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers.  According to the 
petitioner, there is no case at all for proceeding against him, and 
that   the   proceedings   against   him,   therefore,   deserve   to   be 
quashed. 
4
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.  I 
have heard the learned APP    With their assistance, I have gone 
through the petition, and the annexures thereto.
I have also glanced through the case diary which has 
been made available for my perusal by the learned APP
The petitioner and other accused are alleged to have 
abetted the commission of suicide by one Shivaji Gade.
The   circumstances   leading   to   the   death   of   the   said 
Shivaji Gade, as appearing from the prosecution case itself, are as 
follows :­
8
Shivaji   Gade   was   in   service   as   a   teacher   at   Dr. 
Rajendra Prasad Madhyamik Ashramshala, Shenit.  The petitioner, 
accused   no.1   –   Milind   and   accused   no.2   –   Shamrao,   were   all 
working   as   teachers   in   the   same   school.     One   Babybai   Jadhav 
(accused no.4) was also working in the said school as a cook.  On 
1st January 2011, in the midnight,  the deceased went to the house 
of   the   said   Babybai   Jadhav.     According   to   the   case   of   the 
prosecution,   he   had   gone   to   demand   water,   but   according   to 
Babybai Jadhav, he had behaved indecently, and had demanded 
sex from her.  Babybai Jadhav was, therefore, scared and escaped 
from the house.  She spent some part of the remaining night in the 
Buddha   Vihar,   situated   nearby.     On   the   next   day,   she   made   a 
complaint   against   Shivaji   Gade   to   the   Head   Master   of   the   said 
Rajendra   Prasad   Prathamik   Va   Madhyamik   Ashram   Shala,   and 
later,   also   to   the   Secretary   of   the   Satya   Niketan   Sanstha.     A 
departmental   enquiry   into   the   matter   was   held,   and   minor 
punishment   was   inflicted   upon   the   said   Shivaji   Gade.     This 
happened on 15th February 2011.   The petitioner and the accused 
nos.1 and 2 were the members of the enquiry committee.
On   24thFebruary   2011,   said   Shivaji   Gade   died   by 
falling from a train.   On 4th  March 2011, Smt.Meenabai, wife of 
Shivaji Gade lodged a report with the police alleging that Shivaji 
Gade was being treated improperly by the petitioner and the other 
accused; and that a false complaint had been lodged against him 
by the accused no.4 Baby Jadhav, and that due to humiliation felt 
on that count, and the punishment inflicted on him, Shivaji Gade 
had   committed   suicide.     According   to   her,   therefore,   the 
commission of suicide by the said Shivaji Gade was abetted by the 
petitioner and other accused. 
It   is   not   clear,   in   the   first   place,   that   Shivaji   Gade 
indeed   committed   suicide.     Whether   the   death   was   suicidal   or 
accidental, is not clear.  However, the claim is that letters written 
by   Shivaji   Gade   were   found   after   four   days,   and   that   from   the 
contents   of   the   said   letters,   the   death   of   Shivaji   Gade   can   be 
believed to be suicidal.
However, even if one proceeds on the basis that the 
death of Shivaji Gade was suicidal, there is a fundamental defect 
in the prosecution case.  In view of this, I do not think it it is not 
necessary   to   go   deeper   into   the   factual   aspects   of   the   matter, 
though a  prima facie  evaluation of the material collected by the 
police   in   the   course   of   investigation   is   permissible,at   this   stage 
also.  The basic and fundamental defect in the prosecution case is 
that   the   facts   alleged   by   the   prosecution,   even   if   taken   at   face 
value, do not disclose the ingredients of any offence punishable 
The case of the prosecution at best is as follows :­
under section 306 of the IPC. 
That the petitioner and other accused conspired with 
one   another   by   manipulating   a   complaint   of   the   accused   no.4 
Babybai Jadhav against the deceased Shivaji Gade.   That Shivaji 
Gade  had  actually  gone  to   the   house   of   Babybai  Jadhav  in   the 
midnight after having his new year dinner and only for demanding 
water as he was thirsty.  Babybai Jadhav, however, lodged a false 
complaint that Shivaji Gade had outraged her modesty.   On the 
basis of such false complaint, a departmental enquiry was held and 
Shivaji Gade was held to be guilty of misbehaviour, and inflicted 
with a minor penalty.  Shivaji Gade committed suicide because of 
the humiliation caused to him by the accused persons and that, as 
because of the torments caused to him by the accused persons, he 
committed   suicide,   the   accused   persons   are   liable   for   abetting 
commission of suicide by Shivaji Gade. 
The   petitioner's   role   in  the   matter   is   that   he  was   a 
member   of   the   enquiry   committee   which   held   the   alleged 
misconduct of the Shivaji Gade as proved, which caused mental 
13
trauma to him. 
Surely, in this case, whether the death of Shivaji Gade 
was indeed suicidal, and whether even if it was suicidal, whether 
the suicide had been committed by him because of the torments 
caused to him by the petitioner and other accused, is not clear at 
all.  However, there is a more fundamental question viz. Assuming  
that Shivaji Gade indeed committed suicide because of the torments  
caused to him by the act and conduct of the petitioner and the other  
accused, can the petitioner be prosecuted on the allegation of having  
abetted commission of suicide by the said Shivaji Gade, that needs to  
be answered.
14
For   answering   this   question,   the   legal   concept   of 
'abetment' needs to be fully comprehended.  The law relating to it 
is found in Chapter V of the IPC.  Section 107 of the IPC 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   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  
wilful   misrepresentation,   or   by  
wilful   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 that  
thing. 
Illustration 
A,   a   public   officer,   is  
authorized   by   a   warrant   from   a  
Court of Justice to apprehend Z.  
B,   knowing   that   fact   and   also  
that   C   is   not   Z,   wilfully  
represents to A that C is Z, and  
thereby intentionally causes A to  
apprehend   C.   Here,   B   abets   by  
instigation   the   apprehension   of  
C. 
Explanation   2.­­   Whoever,   either  
prior   to   or   at   the   time   of   the  
commission   of   an   act,   does  
anything   in   order   to   facilitate  
the   commission   of   that   act,   and  
thereby
facilitates
the  
commission   thereof,   is   said   to  
aid the doing of that act." 
15
Section 108 of the IPC defines 'abettor'.   It reads as 
under :
"108.   Abettor.­­   A   person   abets  
an offence, who abets either the  
commission of an offence, or the  
commission of an act which would  
be an offence, if committed by a  
person   capable   by   law   of  
committing   an   offence   with   the  
same   intention   or   knowledge   as  
that of the abettor." 
(Explanations   and   illustrations  
omitted   as   not   relevant   for   the  
present.) 
Here, the case is of abetment by instigation; and other 
two   modes   of   abetment,   viz.:­   by   conspiracy   and   by   aiding,   as 
contemplated under the clause 'secondly' and 'thirdly' of Section 
107 are out of question.   The issue then comes to this :  when a  
person is  said  to  'instigate' another?  The  word 'instigate'  literally 
means to goad, or urge, forward, or to provoke, incite, urge, or 
encourage, to do an (evil) act.   It is well settled, that in order to 
amount   to   abetment,   there   must   be  mens   rea   or  community   of 
intention.     Without   knowledge   or   intention,   there   can   be   no 
abetment and the knowledge and intention must relate to the act 
said to be abetted, i.e., suicide, in this case.  In order to constitute 
the culpable act. 
17
'abetment by instigation', there must be a direct incitement to do 
The High Courts and even the Apex Court have, in a 
number   of   cases,   considered   as   to   what   constitutes   an   offence 
under section 306 of the IPC.
In Criminal Writ Petition No.1131 of 2011 (decided 
on 26th April 2012) I had an occasion to deal with this aspect and 
after   considering   the   law   laid   down   in   the   following 
pronouncements:
(i)  Manish Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan
           (1995 Criminal Law Journal 3066)
(ii)  Vedprakash Bhaiji Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
            (1995 Criminal Law Journal 893)
(iii)  Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2002 Criminal Law Journal 2796)
(v) 
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh
(2001 Criminal Law Journal 4724)
(iv)  Cyriac s/o Devassia & Anr Vs. Sub­Inspector of Police,
Kaduthuruthy & Anr
(2005 Criminal Law Journal 4322
8/11
Tilak
(vi)  Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat
(2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 628
the legal position in that regard was summarized by me as under :­
“Even if a person would commit suicide because of  
the torments of an accused, the accused cannot be  
said to have abetted the commission of suicide by  
the deceased, unless the accused would intend, while  
causing   torments   to   the   victim/deceased,   that   he  
should commit suicide.   Even if the rigour of this  
proposition is diluted, still, the least that would be  
required is, that it should be shown that the accused  
could reasonably foresee that because of his conduct,  
the   victim   was   almost   certain­or   at   least   quite  
likely­to   commit   suicide.     Unless   that   the   victim  
should commit suicide, is either intended, or can be  
reasonably  foreseen and expected a  person cannot  
be   charged   of   having   abetted   the   commission   of  
suicide, even if the suicide has been committed as a  
result of some of the acts committed by the accused.  
A perusal of the reported judgments show that even  
in cases where the accused had uttered the words  
such   as   "go   and   die",   in   abusive   and   humiliating  
language, which, allegedly, led to the committing of  
instigation   and   that   consequently,   there   would   be  
19
no offence of abetment of suicide. 
suicide,   it   was   held   that   it   would   not   amount   to  
In   the   instant   case,   in   the   first   place,   there   is   no 
sufficient basis for holding that the complaint lodged by accused 
no.4 Babybai Jadhav against Shivaji Gade was false or malicious. 
After all, that Shivaji Gade had gone to her house at 2.00 to 2.30 
a.m on the new year night, and that he was drunk at that time, 
appears to be supported by the material in the charge­sheet.  The 
act of the deceased in going to the house of a woman who was 
alone in the house at that time in the mid­night, and after having 
had a new year party and dinner, is itself rather curious, and the 
least that can be said is that there is no material to indicate that 
the   complaint lodged  by Babybai  Jadhav, was  false.     Secondly, 
even if the complaint of Babybai is assumed to be false, for the 
sake   of   arguments,   there   is   nothing   to   show   that   the   enquiry 
committee was aware of the same and deliberately gave a wrong 
finding, and that too with the intention that Shivaji Gade should 
commit   suicide.     There   is   nothing   to   show   that   accused   no.4 
Babybai Jadhav had conspired with the school management, and 
that the school management had conspired with the petitioner or 
other members of the enquiry committee, so as to return a wrong 
finding – and that too with the object that Shivaji Gade should 
thereby commit suicide. 
20
While   viewing   the   case,   and   more   particularly   the 
theory of conspiracy, as put forth by the prosecution, it must be 
understood that the fact that Shivaji Gade had gone to Babybai's 
house in the mid­night, is not in dispute though what he did after 
going there, may be in dispute.  Thus, visit of Shivaji Gade could 
not have been anticipated by Babybai Jadhav and/or the school 
management.  This is significant because the conspiracy could not 
have been hatched based on such unanticipated happening.
21
It is possible that some persons who might have been 
against   the   deceased   tried   to   take   advantage   of   the   complaint 
lodged by Babybai Jadhav, and create a big uproar regarding the 
incident   resulting   in   loss   of   reputation   of   the   deceased.     The 

deceased, as a result of this, was apparently feeling humiliated.  If 
the   deceased   has   taken   the   step   of   putting   an   end   to   his   life 
because of loss of reputation, and the humiliation felt by him on 
account of being subjected to a departmental enquiry, it is indeed 
unfortunate but, that by itself would not render the petitioner – 
and even the other accused – to be prosecuted on the allegation of 
having abetted the commission of suicide by the said Shivaji Gade.
22
The   requisite  mens   rea   –  atleast   on   the   part   of   the 
petitioner – is clearly lacking in this case.
23
The parameters of criminal liability are well settled. 
Merely because a suicide has been committed and taking of such 
extreme   step   by   the   deceased   is   attributed   to   the   acts   of   some 
persons,   such   persons   would   not   be   liable   to   be   prosecuted   as 
abettors to the suicide.
24
There must be some indication of the requisite  mens 
rea on their part before they can be successfully prosecuted.

The   learned   Addl.   Sessions   Judge   did   not   consider 

whether the police report and accompanying documents, disclosed 
the ingredients of an offence punishable under section 306 of the 
IPC,   and   whether   even   if   it   was   assumed   that   Shivaji   Gade 
committed  suicide   on   account  of   the  departmental   action  taken 
against him, and because of the punishment inflicted upon him, 
26
whether that would amount 'to instigating him to commit suicide'. 
This was a case where the petitioner was entitled to 

be discharged.
Petition is allowed.
28 The petitioner stands discharged.
27 
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment