1 Appln: 4578/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4578 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra …. Applicant Vs. Sharad Krishna Thakare & Ors. .... Respondents Mrs. U.V. Kezriwal, APP for State. Mr. M.S. Mohite, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3. CORAM : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 9th December, 2010 P.C.:- 1. This is an application filed by the State for leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated 8th June 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.40 of 2010, acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. Respondent no.1 is the Managing Director of Laxmi Hydraulics Private Limited, Solapur, respondent no.2 is the Financial Manager, respondent no.3 is the Marketing Manager and the respondent no. 4 is the Recovery Officer of the Company. The company manufacturers various types of electric motors at Solapur. Deceased-Rahul was appointed as Marketing Representative by the company w.e.f. 1st October 2002 for the area of Kolhapur, Ichalkaranji, Sangli, Satara, 2 Appln: 4578/2010 Karad etc. As per the agreement, deceased Rahul was to place orders on behalf of the buyers and for himself for the product of the company and on such purchases he was entitled to 6% commission. PW-6, the complainant, who is the father of deceased Rahul was running a shop at Kolhapur by name “Rote Trading Company”. Rahul assisted his father in the business and also was selling electric motors of the company through the shop. By the end of January 2009, an amount of Rs.10.00 lacs was due from Rahul to the company, which was to be recovered by him from the customers towards the price of electric motors sold. There was an amount of Rs.5,64,000/- due from the company to Rahul towards the commission for the same period. Deceased-Rahul was insisting for the payment of commission. It is alleged that deceased-Rahul was mentally harassed by the respondents and demanding him to recover the amounts due from the customers. Consequently he was under tension and was unable to sleep during the nights. Being harassed by such treatment, Rahul committed suicide on 16th January 2009. He left a suicidal note making allegations against the respondents. 2. The death of Rahul was initially registered as Accidental Death Case No.7 of 2009. On 30th January 2009, his father filed a complaint vide C.R. No.14 of 2009 against the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. 3 Appln: 4578/2010 After filing of the charge-sheet, the offence being triable by the Sessions Court, the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, consisting of the widow of deceased Rahul, his brother, father and other formal witnesses. The prosecution case was that, deceased Rahul used to get threatening calls from the respondents demanding that he should recover the amounts due to the company from the customers. These calls made Rahul restless and he finally committed suicide. The Sessions court noted that the evidence of the three witnesses was silent as to which was the telephone line on which the threatening telephone calls were received, whether it was of the mobile phone or whether a land line. The evidence was also silent as regards the numbers of the telephones, from which the threatening calls were made. The other evidence produced by the Police from the details of the phone calls recorded by the respective companies was also insufficient as one of the cell nos. i.e. 982314203, from which the alleged call was received, was a number of an unknown person. Call record produced did not disclose the name of the subscriber. The prosecution did not examine witnesses from the service provider to prove the printouts of the computer record produced. There was also no covering letter signed by any officer to prove the 4 Appln: 4578/2010 authenticity of the record. In the circumstances, the trial court had rejected the prosecution case that there were any threatening calls given by any of the respondents to deceased Rahul. As regards the suicidal note, the Sessions Court found that its contents were vague. The suicidal note read as follows: “Due to the harassment by the accused, he is committing suicide. They should be given maximum punishment. They have not given commission since last two years”. The Sessions Judge found that the various acts alleged on the part of the respondents amounting to harassment were not stated in the suicidal note. It made no reference to the alleged threatening telephone calls. Therefore, the suicidal note was not sufficient to bring home the charges against the respondents. Lastly the Court observed that there could be various reasons for a person to commit suicide. Apparently deceased Rahul was in some financial crisis, as had come on record in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, the prosecution has not been established the connection between suicide of deceased Rahul and the respondents. In the circumstances, the trial Court acquitted the respondents. I have carefully gone through entire record and the exhaustive judgment of acquittal of the Sessions Court. It does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, the application is rejected. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota,J.)