1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4619 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Bharat Mahadeo Ghayal & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for applicant/State Shri D.H. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 8th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused. Leave is sought to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal under Sections 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, passed by the Assistant sessions Judge, Osmanabad on 5.8.2010. 2. According to the prosecution, there was ongoing dispute between the deceased Dattatraya Ghayal and the accused on the small piece of land adjoining the lands of the accused and quarrels between the two continued despite intervention of the local villagers and ultimately, Dattatraya got fed up with the quarrels and 2 committed suicide by consuming poison. The incident of quarrel on 1.9.2008, in course of which the accused No.2 gave abuses and accused No.1 made allegations of black magic, according to the prosecution, was to be the last straw on back of the camel, which culminated in the suicide of the deceased Dattatraya. The matter was referred to the Sarpanch – Pramod Patil who called both the accused in Grampanchayat office for bringing peace between the parties. Dattatraya, however, committed suicide in the morning of 3.9.2008. The prosecution contended that the accused abetted the act of suicide by Dattatraya. 3. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. None was examined in defence. The accused, however, denied their involvement in the crime in response to their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Suicide committed by Dattatraya by consuming poison was not the matter in issue before the trial Court. Only question that the trial Court had to deal with was regarding alleged abetment of suicide. 3 5. Learned trial Court, Mr. Sonawane, learned A.P.P. concedes, did consider the law on the subject, particularly the provisions of Section 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, according to learned A.P.P., it erred in appreciating the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses particularly P.W.2 Avidabai Ghayal, wife of the deceased and P.W.3 Nitin Patil, President of Tantamukti Samiti, Wadgaon (S). 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned trial Court did consider the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and weigh the merits of the same vis-a-vis definition of abement as revealed in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On considering the evidence of P.W.1 Hanumant Ghayal, the learned trial Court, from the evidence could legitimately come to the conclusion that there were omissions regarding the material allegations namely (1) the accused threatening his father with loss of job of P.W.1 Hanumant, (2) that Banti had disclosed about the inclusion of the name of P.W.1 Hanumant in the complaint lodged by the accused. Similar omissions were noticed by the learned trial Court in the evidence of P.W.2 Avidabai Ghayal and P.W.3 Nitil Patil. The learned trial Court observed that there was no incriminating material against the accused regarding the alleged threat to remove P.W.1 Hanumant 4 from the job as well as the black magic and the harassment allegedly given to Dattatraya. 7. P.W.3 Nitin Patil deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 1.9.2008, the deceased approached him singly and disclosed to him that he was being harassed as a result of the dispute between him and the accused, and the quarrels ensuing between them and he would be committing suicide by consuming poison. This material revealation, which was elicited in the cross- examination of P.W.3 Nitin Patil, was not disclosed before the police by P.W.3 Nitin Patil. Pertinently, the evidence of P.W.2 Avidabai Ghayal also discloses that the incriminating fact of quarrel between the deceased and the accused in Grampanchayat office following abuses by Rajubai and one boy, relative of the accused, informing her deceased husband about the complaint made by the accused against her husband and the husband committing suicide under mental tension, did not find place in her statement recorded by the police and she had no reason to offer for such omission. 8. On this background, the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial Court fails to show that there has been any abetment of suicide within the meaning of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is reproduced hereinbelow. 5 “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 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 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 of that thing. Thus, the prosecution evidence fails to show that there has been any instigation, or any act or illegal omission, or intentional aid on part of the accused which could have prompted the suicide committed by the deceased Dattatraya. 9. No interference is, therefore, warranted in the impugned judgment. Leave is refused. Criminal Application is rejected. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/cri4619.10