*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU +Crl.P. No.2522 of 2007 %22-06-2010 #Makkena Balaiah and others ….petitioners Vs. $ The State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor. …. Respondent !Counsel for the Petitioner: Rajareddy Koneti Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2001 AIR(SC) 3837 2. 2002 AIR (SC) 1998 3. 2010 AIR (SC) 327 4. (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1353 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2522 of 2007 DATE:22.06.2010 Between: Makkena Balaiah and others …… Petitioners/Accused 1 to 5. And: The State of A.P rep. by its Public Prosecutor. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2522 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 5/A-1 to A-5 are accused of offence punishable under Section 306/34 I.P.C in P.R.C. No.12 of 2006 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur. A-1 and A-5 are brothers and they are sons of A-2. A-3 is wife of A-1. A-4 is wife of A-5. Marriage of the deceased with Ramadevi (witness No.6 as per charge sheet) was performed 10 years prior to the case. It is alleged that when Ramadevi was talking with A-1, the deceased noticed the same and beat A-1 with hands and that fearing for the deceased, Ramadevi went away to some other house and that on 19.03.2006 the deceased gave petition in the police station about missing of his wife alleging that A-1 was responsible and that Ramadevi thereafter went to the police station and from there went to house of Sundaram because of fear for the deceased. It is further alleged that on 20.03.2006 A-1 to A-5 abused the deceased Venkata Rao saying that he is an impotent person and allowed his wife to have illicit intimacy with A-1, and created harassment and degraded prestige of the deceased in the locality and the society and that therefore the deceased consumed pesticide poison and committed suicide on 20.03.2006. In this petition, it has to be seen whether the above prosecution allegations taken on their face value make out the offence for which A-1 to A-5 were charge sheeted. 2) The only imputation alleged to have made by A-1 to A-5 against the deceased is that he is an impotent person and allowed his wife to have illicit intimacy with A-1. According to the prosecution, the said imputations caused harassment and degraded prestige of the deceased in the locality and the society and it resulted in the deceased committing suicide by consuming pesticide poison. The question is whether the above alleged imputation made by A-1 to A-5 against the deceased would amount to abetting the deceased to commit suicide. The petitioner’s counsel placing reliance on several reported decisions of the Supreme Court, contended that even if the above prosecution allegations are taken for granted for the sake of argument, they do not satisfy requirements of any of three varieties of abetment contained in Section 107 I.P.C viz., instigation, engaging in any conspiracy, or intentional aiding. 3) In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh[1], the Supreme Court was considering circumstances relating to abetment of suicide by the husband to the wife, as per Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. The Supreme Court observed: “INSTIGATION is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation”. Thus, a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 4) In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar V. State of M.P[2], the Supreme Court was considering a case relating to a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, in which the accused told the deceased “to go and die”. It was held by the Supreme Court that the said phrase itself would not constitute ingredient of instigation and that presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation. It was further held that the deceased committed suicide after two days of quarrel during which the said words were uttered by the accused, would show that suicide was not direct result of quarrel. 5) In Gangula Mohan Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh[3], the Supreme Court held that the accused therein is not liable for conviction under Section 306 I.P.C as the deceased appears to be a hypersensitive man who committed suicide when the accused levelled allegation of theft of ornaments on the deceased who is his servant and demanded back advance amount paid at the time of his employment. It was held by the Supreme Court that apart from mens rea some positive act by the accused is essential to constitute instigation or intentional aiding resulting in abetment as per Section 107 I.P.C. 6) On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on Dammu Sreenu V. State of Andhra Pradesh[4], and contended that the Court has to see whether there was definite proximity and nexus between conduct and behaviour of the accused with that of suicide committed by the deceased. In that case, the accused/appellant developed illicit relationship with wife of the deceased and was visiting house of the deceased to meet his wife; further, the accused went to house of the deceased and loudly stated that he would continue to have relationship with her and would come to her house so long as she does not object to the same; and further the accused took away wife of the deceased from house of her brother despite protest and kept her with him for four days; and immediately thereafter the deceased committed suicide. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that there was definitely a proximity and nexus between conduct and behaviour of the appellant and wife of the deceased with that of suicide committed by the deceased. Further, the deceased therein had stated that because of the said insult and humiliation he did not like to live. Thus, there was continuous insult and humiliation for the deceased in that case and he expressed the same before he committing suicide. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court upheld conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 7) In the case on hand, there was absolutely no continuous insult or humiliation to the deceased. As per the prosecution case, due to the sole incident of A-1 to A-5 accusing the deceased as impotent person and for that reason wife of the deceased developed illicit relationship with A-1, the deceased became too sensitive and committed suicide. Facts of the present case are proximate to facts in Ramesh Kumar (1 supra). In the case on hand, there was only one instance in which only one sentence was uttered by A-1 to A-5 in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow. In my opinion, even if the said imputation alleged to have been made by A-1 to A-5 against the deceased is true, it does not amount to instigation of the deceased to commit suicide. The above words alleged to have been uttered by A-1 to A-5 have to be read in the context of the previous incident which took place few days prior to 20.03.2006 when the deceased beat A-1 with hands after noticing his wife talking to A-1 on Lakshmipuram Road of Guntur. Because of the said previous incident, in a fit of anger, A-1 to A-5 might have abused the deceased saying that he is an impotent person and allowed his wife to have illicit intimacy with A-1. The said incident alone cannot be inferred as harassment to the deceased or degrading his prestige in the locality and in the society. This is not a case where the deceased left a suicide note prior to committing suicide. Even as per prosecution allegations, wife of the deceased left his company since the incident which occurred on Lakshmipuram Road, Guntur few days prior to 20.03.2006 and did not return to the deceased even after the deceased giving report to the police on 19.03.2006 about missing of his wife. Instead, wife of the deceased went to the police station and appeared and again went away to some other place due to fear for the accused. It may be also a reason for the deceased to take the drastic decision of committing suicide, because his wife discarded him and was avoiding to join him after the incident which took place on Lakshmipuram Road of Guntur. Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution could not make out offence of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 I.P.C with reference to ingredients of abetment enunciated in Section 107 I.P.C, even if the prosecution allegations are taken on their face value. 8) Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in P.R.C. No.12 of 2006 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 22, 2010 Note: L.R copy to be marked (b/o) KSH [1] 2001 AIR(SC) 3837 [2] 2002 AIR (SC) 1998 [3] 2010 AIR (SC) 327 [4] (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)1353