JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner/A2 filed
application under Section 227 Cr.PC for
discharge. He and three others were
charged for the offence punishable under
Section 306 IPC. The deceased was working
as a paid Secretary in the Pellerlamudi
Agricultural Co-operative Society. A1 is
the President of the said Society. A2 is
landlord and A4 is working as a clerk in
the said Society. It is alleged that the
deceased had misappropriated the
amounts of the Society to the tune of
Rs.7 lakhs. He stated that he gave some
amounts unauthorisedly to A1, A2, A3
and A4, The Zonal Manager inspected
the office on 17-8-1994 and directed them
to maintain records upto date. In the
night the deceased committed suicide
leaving his dying declaration. In the
dying declaration, he stated that he gave
monies to the accused and they did
not repay and therefore he is committing
suicide.
(2.)In this case, there is no nexus
between the Act of non-payment by
the accused and the Act of suicide
committed by the deceased. There is
no allegation of intentional aiding or
intentional abetting the deceased to
commit suicide by the accused, to bring
the offence within the ambit of Section 306
IPC or for that matter under Section 107
IPC. In this context, the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in Pattern
Daniel Victor @ Victor Hanter and others
v. State ofAndhra Pradesh Represented By
Public Prosecutor, 1997 (1) ALT (Crl) 124,
is relevant. In that case, it was held as
follows:
"3. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows
that there was no mention as to when the
accused-petitioners threatened the
deceased with the dire consequences
and how they abetted the deceased in
commit suicide. The opinion of the
handwriting expert is based on the
specimen handwriting of the deceased
only, but not basing on the admitted
handwriting of the deceased as it is not
possible to obtain the admitted
handwriting of the deceased. Moreover
the allegations in the charge-sheet do
not show how the accused-petitioners
have intentionally aided the deceased
to commit suicide. To attract the
ingredients of abetment, the intention
of the accused-petitioners to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased is necessary.
Mere non-payment of the debt by
the deceased is not a sufficient proof
to attribute the intention of abetment to
the accused-petitioners. Therefore the
proceedings against the accused
petitioners under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code have to be quashed.
Accordingly the petition is allowed and
the proceedings in PRC No.20 of 1996
on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Kaikalur against
the accused-petitioners herein are hereby
quashed."
(3.)The facts in the above case
are similar to the facts of he present
case. The action of the accused in not
repaying the loans, even if it is correct,
it does not constitute any instigation
for the deceased to commit suicide.
Therefore, certainly the petitioner/A2
has to be discharged. Hence, he is
discharged.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.