In Father Peter Paul Antony Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 3429, in paragraph nos. 20 and
21, this Court observed thus:
“20. In the light of above facts and settled legal
position, it is noted that even if a person would
commit suicide because of certain acts of the accused,
the accused cannot be said to have committed
abetment of suicide by the deceased unless the
accused would intend, while causing such acts to the
victim, that he/she should commit suicide. As such, it
is necessary for the prosecution to establish that by his
acts, the applicant/accused could reasonably foresee
that because of his conduct, the victim was almost
certain or at least, quite likely to commit suicide.
Unless this is established, a person cannot be charged
of having abetted commission of suicide, even if,
suicide has been committed as a result of some of the
acts committed by the accused.
In the case of Sanju (supra), it is seen that
even in the case where the accused had uttered words
such as "go and die" in abusive and humiliating
language which, allegedly, led to committing of
suicide, it was held that it would not amount to
instigation and consequently, there would be no
offence of abetment of suicide.
21. In the application on hand, there is
absolutely no evidence to establish that on the day of
incident or immediately prior to the deceased
committing suicide, applicant has instigated or
abetted deceased to commit the same. In that view of
the matter, applicant cannot be attributed the
requisite mens rea so as to hold him guilty as abettor.
This appears to be fundamental defect in the case of
prosecution and it does not spell out any offence
punishable under Section 305 of Indian Penal Code.
19. Thus, I am of the view that the deceased was not
denied any basic amenities to his life by the appellant. Further,
though it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased used to
prosecute his studies, there is nothing brought on record to show
that at any point of time, the deceased was declared unsuccessful
in any of his academic year. In the light of evidence of Hemant
(PW4) and Pooja (PW2), it is clear that there was no objection for
the deceased even to withdraw huge amounts from the account of
appellant by using ATM though the deceased, who was only in the
9th standard. Not only that, this evidence would show that the
deceased was also permitted to retain an amount of Rs.1,000/-
and looking to his age, in my view, it is a very huge amount. The
admitted position also speaks that the mother of the deceased was
a psychic patient having nothing to do with drinking of the
appellant. Therefore, he used to be always under depressed
condition. Different persons may react differently to the same
situation. Therefore, merely because the deceased by writing a
note mentioning about the drinking habit of his father and
committed suicide, in my view, it cannot be treated as an
abetment, especially when the prosecution evidence falls short to
show that there used to be ill treatment at the hands of the
appellant under the influence of liquor to the deceased so as to
drive the deceased to take the extreme step of his life.
In my view, the learned Judge of the Court below has
swayed away with the fact that the deceased boy was required to
commit suicide for an admitted position that the appellant was a
drunkard. Merely drinking can never be an abetment for a person
to commit suicide.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.391/2015
Ramrao Kisan Rathod, Vs State of Maharashtra
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 04.01.2020.
