1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.618 OF 2009. Ranjana Sanjay Parashar Age: 48 Yrs., occu. Service, r/o Gokuldas Tejpal hospital, Mumbai. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra. 2) Prabhakar Premdas Shivlekar Age: 40 Yrs., occu. Service, r/o medical Quarter B/1/9, Aurangabad. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.NS Ghanekar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.KS Patil, APP for State. Mrs.SS Jadhav, Adv. for Resp.No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20th January, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Mr.Ghanekar has received written submissions from Mrs.Jadhav. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective Parties. Rule was issued on 9th October, 2009. 2) The petitioner seeks quashment of prosecution in Sessions Case No.111/2008 2 initiated on the basis of Crime No.I-19 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, with City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad. 3) The facts of the case project, embittered paternal uncle, a class IV employee in Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Aurangabad, is the whistle blower, for death of his niece, where other accused and present petitioner were superiors of deceased Sunita, who has allegedly committed suicide. She was a student of Nursing College and petitioner was a Matron at the Government Nursing College, Aurangabad. 4) The prosecution case, unfolded from statements of four witnesses, viz. Vilas, Abhimanyu, Chandrakala and Madhuri reveal that major role in annoying and humiliating the victim Sunita was of her two immediate Incharge/superiors, viz. Rashmi Burbure and Aasha Sonawane. The present petitioner was not in direct contact with the students of Nursing college, barring she being Matron of the Nursing College. The unsolicited and resentful scolding loath some behaviour, touching to the heart of the girl students, constrained Sunita to inject Scoline and she allegedly succumbed a suicidal death. The statements of above said four 3 witnesses taken together do not attract the ingredients of Section 107, which deal with abetment of a thing. Section 306 of IPC ordains as under : “306. If any person commits suicide, whoever, abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 5) The learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused placed the reliance on the following judgments to substantiate his contention. a) 2002 STPL (LE) 31097 SC = AIR 2002 SC 1998 – Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.; b) 2003 (12) LJSOFT 97= 2004 Bom.C.R. (Cri.)809 Jagannath V Thakare Vs. State of Mah. c) 2006 Cri. L.J. 3123– Avinash J.Mahale & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra; d) 1995 Cri.L.J.893-(Madhya Pradesh High Court) Vekprakash Bhaiji Vs. State of M.P.; e) 1995 Cri.L.J. 3066 (Rajasthan High Court) Manish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan; 4 f) 2004 Cri.L.J.197 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Ajay Patodia Vs. State of M.P.; g) 2005 Cri.LJ 4322 (Kerala High Court) Cyriac s/o Devassia and Anr. Vs. Sub Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy and Anr. 6) There is no direct statement, any act, conducive to abetment from the accused/petitioner in order to enrage the deceased to take extreme step of committing suicide. At the most, it could be said that in spite of having received the communication of protest against the conduct of the aforesaid two immediate Incharge of the deceased, i.e. Rashmi Burbure and Aasha Sonawane, the petitioner should have been more vigilant in discharging her duties. However, that by itself will not tantamount to abetment. There is no instigation from petitioner, suggesting Sunita to end her life. Even if all the statements are accpeted as correct on their face value, no case of alleged commisison of an offence under Section 306 IPC, is made out against petitioner. 7) Smt. Jadhav says, death of Sunita appears to be shrouded with mysteries. Mrs.Jadhav points that the suspects elude with their command in the organization as Scoline injection could not be easily accessible to Sunita. She also pointed from the record that on 15.5.2003, it was a holiday, there was no regular 5 operation and 30 vials of the said injections were in tact in the Store Room. The learned Counsel submits that four pricks/holes found on the dead body of Sunita are vocal to demonstrate that it was an evil intention which was cloak to eliminate her and a show of commission of suicide is effected. At this stage, this Court need not to comment on these aspects. 8) The record taken together from any angle would not be bringing the case for infraction of Section 306 r/w Section 107 of IPC. In a civilized society a person should not live for the rest of his natural life with a sword of Damocles, by allowing the prosecution to rake skeleton from any cupboard at any time. The primary evidence by way of statement, narrating as aforesaid, seldom make out a case to further prosecute against the accused/petitioner. The consequence thereof is, the prosecution against the present petitioner Ranjana is quashed. The petitioner is discharged. However, any observations made herein above would not be to the benefit of other accused, who are facing the prosecution. Secondly, if during the course of trial, if by way of additional evidence prosecution brings forth certain facts against the petitioner to enmesh in the fray, the rights of the learned Judge, seized with the matter, are 6 not foreclosed. 9) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/