..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3750 OF 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Prashant Subrao Mangaonkar. ..Respondent. ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the Applicant-State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 17th June, 2008. DATED : 17th June, 2008. DATED : 17th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 3rd June, 2006 passed by the learned V Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.120 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-orig.accused of the offence under Sections 306 and 323 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under : ..(2).. . Deceased Sarita was studying in 9th standard "A" division at the relevant time. She was the daughter of PW-6 Laxmibai. The respondent-accused was working as Teacher in the said school. He was the class-teacher of A division of 9th standard. The prosecution case is that the accused used to beat Sarita and unnecessarily humiliate her. On the day prior to the incident Sarita had remained absent. On the next day i.e. on 2nd March, 2005 the accused did not allow Sarita to sit in the class-room. He drove her out and told Sarita to bring her parents otherwise he will not allow her to sit in the class-room. On account of this fact, Sarita felt humiliated and hence she went home and committed suicide by hanging herself. 3. Heard the learned APP for the applicant-State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the record in the present case. 4. The incident has occurred on 2nd March, ..(3).. 2005. However, the FIR has been lodged only on 12th March, 2005. There is delay of ten days in lodging the FIR. On perusal of the evidence, I find that the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The complainant PW-6 Laxmibai has stated that as the teachers from the said school put pressure on her and her family members hence she has not lodged the FIR. However, in the cross-examination she has admitted that she has not stated in her FIR that the teachers of the said school put pressure on her or her family members not to lodge the report in the police station. It is also pertinent to note that though according to Laxmibai Sarita committed suicide, no information regarding death of Sarita by hanging was given to the police. She performed the funeral on the very day and ten days thereafter she lodged the complaint. In the present case, in order to prove the suicidal death of Sarita, the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence i.e. post-mortem notes or inquest panchnama or any other record. 5. In order to prove that the accused was ..(4).. beating Sarita and he humiliated her, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of PW-6 Laxmibai and PW-7 Supriya. PW-7 Supriya has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not personally seen the accused assaulting or insulting Sarita in the class-room. PW-6 Laxmibai has also not personally seen accused assaulting or insulting Sarita. 6. In order to prove that Sarita committed suicide on account of the act of the accused, the prosecution has placed reliance on Exh.24 which is a suicide note written by Sarita. I have perused the said note. The deceased has written only one sentence against the accused i.e. he used to beat her a lot. The prosecution case is that on the day prior to the incident Sarita had remained absent. On the next day i.e. on 2nd March, 2005 the accused did not allow Sarita to sit in the class-room. He told Sarita to bring her parents otherwise he will not allow her to sit in the class-room. However, there is no reference to this incident in the suicide note and there is only general reference that accused was beating ..(5).. her a lot. Except that, Sarita has not made any allegations against the accused in the suicide note. There is no allegation that he was insulting her in the class-room or he was humiliating her in the class-room. Thus, the contents of suicide note Exh.24 does not indicate that by any words, or action or conduct, the accused has instigated, aided or abetted Sarita to commit suicide. It cannot be said that suicide by deceased Sarita was the direct result of the action of the accused on 2nd March, 2005 of sending Sarita home to bring her parents. Assuming for the sake of arguments that on the date of incident, accused sent deceased Sarita to her house for bringing her parents, as on previous day, she was absent in the classroom, this act of the accused of not allowing Sarita to sit in the class room and sending Sarita home to bring her parents, will not attract the provisions of Section 306 of IPC. It is also pertinent to note that the accused has not uttered any words to deceased Sarita, by which she was insulted or humiliated in the class-room. ..(6).. 7. Even assuming that the incident of 2nd March, 2005 took place in the class-room, it cannot be said that the accused by such an act instigated Sarita to commit suicide. The defence of the accused is that the examinations were after few days and Sarita was remaining absent very often, hence when Sarita remained absent on the earlier day, on the next day he asked Sarita to bring her parents. This act by the accused cannot be said to be such that it would instigate any student to commit suicide. From the evidence of PW-10 Sunita Dhumal it is seen that Sarita was not the only student who was sent home on that day to bring her parents, but, 6-7 other girls were also told to bring their parents as they had remained absent. Looking to the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge come to the conclusion that the act of the accused is not sufficient to attract the offence of abetment of suicide. As far as Section 323 IPC is concerned, there is no material to show that any hurt was actually caused to Sarita and neither PW-1 Laxmibai nor PW-7 Supriya have personally witnessed any beating by accused to Sarita. ..(7).. 8. In order that the offence under Section 306 of IPC is brought home, it must be proved that the accused has instigated deceased Sarita to commit suicide, or has engaged with anybody in any conspiracy for obtaining the desired results i.e., the suicide on the part of Sarita and acts or illegally omits to act in pursuance of such conspiracy, or that the accused intentionally induced by any act, or illegal omission the committing of suicide. In any event, it must be brought home that the accused had intention of bringing about suicide on the part of the deceased. The essence of Third clause of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code is the intention on the part of accused. But unfortunately, in this case, the prosecution evidence falls short of establishing such intention on the part of the accused and hence, it would be difficult to hold that the accused had intended to bring about the suicide on the part of the unfortunate girl. 9. Looking to the evidence on record I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned ..(8).. Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)