HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4227 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 (For short, ‘the Accused’), under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in Sessions Case No.149 of 2008, pending on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, registered for offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. 2. The Petitioners are the Accused and the Respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant in the P.R.C. No.19 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the P.R.C. No.19 of 2008. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The husband of the de-facto complainant (deceased) in the case who was a ward member of Narayanauram Gram Panchayat gave an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the Accused about two years prior to the incident in question and in turn the Accused assured that they would give double the amount of fake currency and later they did not return the amount even though the deceased requested the Accused to return the amount and thereafter two days prior to his death when he put forth the matter before his wife i.e. the de-facto complainant, she demanded the Accused on his behalf to pay the said amount but they denied to have any liability to pay the amount and abused her and therefore the deceased left his house and committed suicide by hanging using a plastic rope and leaving a suicide note to the same effect. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Accused that emphatically as per the prosecution case, about two days prior to the incident in question, the wife of the deceased approached the Accused and demanded the amount for which they replied denying any liability to pay the amount and abused her and therefore the deceased went into depression and left his house and committed suicide by hanging using a plastic rope and leaving the suicide note to the same effect which does not amount to abetment of the Accused against the deceased to commit suicide. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Balagoni Balaraj Goud and another Vs. State of A.P. and another[1]. 5. Therefore the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings in so far as section 306 I.P.C. is concerned? 6. Section 306 I.P.C. reads as follows : “Abetment of suicide : 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.” 7. Section 107 I.P.C. reads as follows : “Abetment of a thing : A person abets the doing of a thing, who - Firstly :-- 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 willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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 facilities the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 8. In order to punish and convict the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. the question of abetment as described in Section 107 I.P.C. is to be established prima-facie. In the decision cited supra, another decision of the Supreme Court reported in Sanju Alia Sanjayl Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.[2] was referred therein, wherein it was held as follows : “Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased to go and die, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. The word ‘instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens-rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation.” 9. In another decision of the Supreme Court reported in Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P.[3], which was also referred in the decision 1st cited supra, it was held as follows : “At the time of framing of charge, the trial Court thought it appropriate to associate the appellant herein as an accused because of the words he uttered to the deceased. We think that just on the basis of that utterance the Court of Session was in error in summoning the appellant to face trial. In the first place it is difficult, in the facts and circumstances, to come to even a prima-facie view that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature, which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. Besides the deceased had plenty of time of weight the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant.” 10. In the decision cited 1st supra at para No.7 it was held as follows : “He also relied on another decision reported in Bura Manohar Vs. State of A.P.[4], wherein it was held as follows : “The case of the prosecution in this case is that due to the acts of the petitioner, the deceased felt humiliated and committed suicide. Act causing humiliation may be the offence, but if there is no material on record to show that there was ‘abetment’ as defined in Section 107 IPC for the deceased committing suicide, a charge under Section 306 IPC cannot be framed against the accused. In this case since there is no material on record to show that the petitioner committed any act of ‘abetment’ as defined in Section 107 IPC for the deceased committed suicide, the petitioner cannot be charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C.” 11. Therefore, there should be enough material prima-facie to the effect that there was mens-rea on the part of the Accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide or they did any thing in order to facilitate the commission of that act as envisaged in Section 107 I.P.C. in order to constitute the offence covered by Section 306 I.P.C. Mere humiliation without satisfying the other ingredient or ingredients is not sufficient here. It is pertinent to note here the case of the prosecution that the deceased gave certain amount to the Accused on their assurance that they would give double the amount of fake currency which was illegal but later, neither they complied with their assurance, nor repaid the amount to the deceased and further two days prior to the death of the deceased, the wife of the deceased on his behalf approached the Accused and demanded to pay the amount, but the accused denied any liability to pay the amount and consequently the deceased went into depression and committed suicide in the above said manner. Emphatically he did not choose to commit suicide for long time and till his wife approached the accused and the accused abused her in the matter as the prosecution admits. Therefore, his act to commit suicide was not a direct consequence of the alleged act of the accused denying to pay the alleged amount, whereas it appears that he did so as the accused humiliated his wife as she approached them in the matter while denying to pay the amount by which it cannot be said that the accused had mens-rea to drive the accused to commit suicide or facilitated him by their acts to do so. Therefore, Section 306 read with Section 107 I.P.C. is not attracted here. 12. Further, it is the duty of the trial Court which deals with the matter to examine the relevant material available and prosecute the accused with reference to relevant offences subject to finding that sufficient material is there to do so. It is very important that in fact the allegations made against the accused provide that the accused induced the deceased to part with certain amount on giving assurance that by doing so they would give double the amount of fake currency but later failed to return the amount by reason of which, the deceased incurred loss of the amount paid to the accused. Therefore, it is the duty of the trial Court to examine as to whether sufficient material is there to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. or to take necessary steps, consequently. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against A-1 to A-4 for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. is concerned, but however, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District is directed to send back the entire case file to the Committal Court through proper channel to decide the question of prosecuting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 16-09-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 248 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4227 OF 2008 September, 16, 2011 DSH [1] 2007 (3) ALT (Crl.) 312 (A.P.) [2] (2002) 5 SCC 371 [3] 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438 [4] 2002 (2) ALT (Crl.) 184 (A.P.)