1 Criminal Application No.2276 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2276 OF 2011 Balkrushna S/o.Madhav Deshpande, Age-51 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Staff Quarters, SMBT Dental College, Amrutnagar, Tal.Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Mohan S/o.Anandrao Bhoi, Age-47 years, Occu-Service, R/o.364, Bhoi Galli, Baramati, Dist. Pune RESPONDENTS Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 26/09/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. The present application is filed u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C., directed against the rejection of the discharge application filed u/s. 227 of the 2 Criminal Application No.2276 of 2011 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 10/02/2011 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Sessions Case No.59/2007. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for State. 4. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision in this application can be summarized as : Deceased Gauri Mohan Bhoi was studying in 4th year B.D.S. Course in SMBT College Sangamner. She was residing in room no. 128 of the ladies hostel alongwith 3 other room-mates, who were also students of her class. On 30/09/2007, said Gauri had committed suicide around 12.30 noon by jumping from the terrace of the said hostel. Father of Gauri, Mohan Bhoi r/o.Baramati had lodged complaint against the present applicant and 3 others in Sangamner City Police Station. On the basis of said complaint, an offence came to be registered at CR No.171/2007 for an offence punishable u/s. 306 r/w. 34 of the IPC. It is alleged in the said complaint that the 3 room-mates of Gauri were harassing her on different counts and teasing her on the count that she had some relation with one professor of that college. Accordingly, she made representation to the rector of the hostel/the present applicant and Dean of the said college, requesting to change the room. She has also informed about the harassment caused to her to her father complainant Mohan. Complainant Mohan assured his daughter deceased Gauri that he 3 Criminal Application No.2276 of 2011 will personally meet the rector and Dean and convey her request to change her room. It appears that the examination was commenced on 26/09/2007. In the morning of 30/09/2007, Gauri telephoned her father/complainant Mohan to take her back. Complainant Mohan assured her that she has to face the examination and after her examination, he will take her back to the village. In the meantime, Gauri had committed suicide as alleged. 5. Following to the registration of an offence, statements of certain witnesses came to be recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was initially filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Sangamner. The Court of J.M.F.C, after passing necessary committal order, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The case was numbered as Sessions Case No.59/2007. 6. At the time of framing of charge in the said Sessions case, on 17/03/2008, an application was moved by the applicant and others u/s. 227 of the Cr.P.C.. Thereafter on hearing the submissions of both the parties, the impugned order dated 10/02/2011 came to be passed. 7. At this juncture, it is necessary to quote section 306 as well as Section 107 of the IPC, which read as follows : Section 306 of The I.P.C. : “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, 4 Criminal Application No.2276 of 2011 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Thus, abetment is an essential ingredient of offence punishable u/s. 306 of the IPC. Section 107 of The I.P.C. : “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. 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” Even in the light of above mentioned definition, the documents and record submitted by the Police in the present matter do not disclose any abetment on part of accused no.1. 5 Criminal Application No.2276 of 2011 8. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has taken me through the order impugned so also the statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation. It is brought to the notice of this Court that so far as the allegations against the present applicant who is rector of the Ladies Hostel are concerned, it is only that inspite of request, he has not changed the room of the deceased. Other than this, the entire charge sheet is silent about the alleged role played by this applicant. Considering the ingredients of section 107 of the IPC, which I have reproduced above, merely because room of deceased Gauri was not changed even though requested to this applicant, certainly the act of the present applicant will not cover under the ambit of Section 107 of the IPC. Perusal of the statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation do not disclose anywhere that because of the acts of the present applicant, life of the deceased became miserable, which forced her to commit suicide. Thus from perusal of the record, one fact is clear that the requisite ingredients to establish the offence of ‘abetment’ as defined u/s. 107 of the IPC are not present in the case and if it is so, even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, without a cross examination of a single word, even then there is no prima facie material to frame charge against this applicant. In the result, order impugned passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner by his order dated 10/02/2011 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the order impugned is quashed and set aside. Application for discharge of the present applicant is 6 Criminal Application No.2276 of 2011 hereby allowed u/s. 227 of the Cr.P.C. He is discharged from Sessions Case No.59/2007. His bail bond stands cancelled. Application stands disposed of accordingly. 9. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEPT.2011/cri.appl.2276-11