(1) CR.APP. 1775.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1775 OF 2009 1] Narayan S/o Ramrao Patil Aged : 30 years, Occu.: Agri. 2] Sanjay S/o Pandharinath Pandhare, Aged : 32 years, Occu.: Agri., 3] Ashok S/o Pandharinath Pandhare, Aged : 35 years, Occu.: Agri., 4] Dhullappa S/o Raghunath Khatke, Aged : 32 years, Occu.: Agri., All R/o Devarjan Taluka Udgir, District Latur .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on PP. High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the Applicants Smt. R.R. Mane, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 7TH JULY, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in crime no. 85 of 2009 registered with Udgir (Rural) Police Station, Dist. Latur for offences (2) CR.APP. 1775.2009 punishable under section 306, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code dated 21.5.2009. 2] The complainant narrated a very sad story but unfortunately it would at the most amount to offence under section 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and not under section 306 IPC. 3] The complainant stated that he owns a vehicle which he uses on hire basis. He said on 16.3.2009, while driving his vehicle he met with an accident. A college student by name Satish got killed in the accident. The Police registered a case against him but the relatives of the deceased Satish developed grudge against him. They started coming to his house and started demanding compensation for accidental death of Satish. On 20.5.2009, at about 9:30 am, while the complainant and his family members including his father were at home, the applicants came to his house. They reiterated their demand that complainant should pay Rs.5 Lakh to them as compensation for Satish's accidental death. They even issued threat that if the amount was not paid they would kill the complainant. Similar incident took place at about 1.30 pm. Despite the complainant's assurance that he would pay Rs.50,000/-, they did not agree. They continued to issue threats. After they left, the complainant's father out of anxiety expressed (3) CR.APP. 1775.2009 helplessness. He said he could not arrange the demanded amount and it is better for him to commit suicide. The complainant, said that thereafter, they had their meals and they retired to sleep. At about 2:00 O' clock in the night the complainant's sister noticed that the complainant's father had committed suicide by hanging himself in one of the rooms of the complainant's house. The complainant thereafter lodged the present complaint alleging that due to the demands and threats issued by the applicants, his father had committed suicide and unfortunately the Police thought it fit to register this offence as an offence under section 306 and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4] Assuming the complaint is truthful and the applicants are guilty of issuing threats and making demands of Rs. 5 Lakh, they still cannot be charged under section 306 IPC. In order to show that they abeted suicide of the deceased the prosecution has to bring on record material within the forecorners of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines abetment of a thing. Section 107 IPC reads as under:- “S. 107 - A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or (4) CR.APP. 1775.2009 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. 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” . Admittedly, the applicants did not directly instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Neither they intentionally aided the commission of the suicide. Even the complainant did not take the anxiety of the deceased, which he expressed earlier, seriously. He said that his father expressed helplessness and showed his depression so much so that he said that he would rather commit suicide than face the consequences. But thereafter, the complainant admitted that all of them had the evening meal and they then went to sleep. This (5) CR.APP. 1775.2009 shows that even the complainant and other family members of the deceased did not realise that the deceased was under severe depression and was prone to commit suicide. It is thus clear that goading and intimidating complainant and his family members with a view to pressurise them for payment of the compensation amount which brought about suicide by the complainant’s father immediately thereafter, would not amount to abetment of suicide. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur unfortunately did not appreciate the facts of the case in proper perspective. Offence under section 306 IPC is not constituted against the applicants and so they are entitled to bail. 5] The applicants are released on bail of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount. 6] A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge-2, Latur. 7] Criminal Application stands disposed of. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/7july9/cr1775.09