( 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 REVISION APPLICATION No.378 of 2003. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.378 of 2003. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.378 of 2003. Ramchandra Annu Ailaje .. Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents. Mr Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr A.A.Kochrekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Ms P.P. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 03.06.2008. DATED : 03.06.2008. DATED : 03.06.2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the rival parties. Perused R & P. 2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.6.2003 passed in Sessions Case No. 248 of 2001 by 5th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur (the Trial Court) acquitting accused Nos. 1 and 2 ( Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 ( 2 ) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). THE FACTUAL MATRIX: THE FACTUAL MATRIX: THE FACTUAL MATRIX: ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ 3. The factual matrix reveal that the applicant is the original complainant and the father of deceased Sunil. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the original accused against whom a complaint was lodged with Ichalkaranji Police Station, District Sholapur, on 3.1.2001 being C.R. No.2 of 2001 under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 4. The facts on record reveal that the complainant-applicant and his son deceased Sunil decided to purchase a truck for consideration of Rs.4,60,001/- from accused Nos. 1 and 2. The complainant and his son paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused and it was also agreed that the complainant and his son will also pay all the balance amount at the instalment of the bank loan till 30.4.2000. The complainant and deceased Sunil paid Rs. 3,12,001/- to the accused ( 3 ) including bank instalments till 25.3.2000. According to the prosecution, on 11.9.2000, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (accused Nos. 1 and 2) respectively came to the complainant and his son and took possession of the truck, purchased by the complainant-applicant and his deceased son Sunil, on the pretext of showing the truck to the bank authorities. 5. Since the truck was the only source of income for livelihood and the truck was not returned to the applicant’s son, he appears to have come under tension. It resulted in stoppage of source of income and deprivation of money paid to the accused. The deceased became annoyed because of the failure on the part of the accused to return the truck purchased by him along with his father (complainant-present-applicant) and under hit of anger, he committed suicide on 3.1.2001. 6. A complaint came to be lodged with Ichalkaranji Police Station being C.R. No. 2 of 2001 under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. ( 4 ) 7. That after filing of the complaint, and completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The charge was framed under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the accused. 8. The prosecution, in support of the case, examined four witnesses and after full trial by a reasoned order the learned 5th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur by his judgment and order acquitted both the accused. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, revisional jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by the applicant, father of the deceased. SUBMISSIONS: SUBMISSIONS: SUBMISSIONS: ----------- ----------- ----------- 10. Mr Gole, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the impugned order is erroneous and suffers from non-application of mind. The perversity crept in the order needs interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He strongly canvassed that there is ( 5 ) proximity of the act of the accused and the act of suicide, as such, the Trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused- Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 11. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant were sought to be supported by the learned A.P.P. for the State. 12. None has appeared on behalf of accused Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3). CONSIDERATION:- CONSIDERATION:- CONSIDERATION:- -------------- -------------- -------------- 13. Before turning to the submissions canvassed one has to turn to the legal issue revolving around Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code which pertains to abetment of suicide. One has to observe that it is settled law that the word "abetment" which occurs in Section 306 of the I.P.C. is ‘abetment’ within the meaning of Section 107 of the I.P.C. which reads as under: "107. Abetment of a thing :- 107. Abetment of a thing :- 107. Abetment of a thing :- A person abets the doing of thing, who - Firstly instigates any person to do that things; ( 6 ) Secondly engages with one or more other persons 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 things; or Thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." Explanation: I. 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." 14. The scope of above provision has been considered in number of judgments by the Apex Court, reference to a few of them would be relevant: 15. In a recent judgment delivered in the case of (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs State of (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs State of (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs State of M.P.), 2002 DGLS 510 : 2002 (5) S.C.C.371 : M.P.), 2002 DGLS 510 : 2002 (5) S.C.C.371 : M.P.), 2002 DGLS 510 : 2002 (5) S.C.C.371 : A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1908 : J.T. 2002 (Supp.1) A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1908 : J.T. 2002 (Supp.1) A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1908 : J.T. 2002 (Supp.1) S.C. 248: 2002(3) Supreme 650, the Apex Court S.C. 248: 2002(3) Supreme 650, the Apex Court S.C. 248: 2002(3) Supreme 650, the Apex Court had occasion to interpret Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court held that presence of mens rea is a necessary concommitment of instigation which was ingredient of the offence within the meaning of section 107 firstly of the Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) The facts of the case were, in fact, more extreme where the accused had expressly told the deceased to go and die. The Apex Court held that even telling the deceased to go and die would not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". In that case, a suicide note was also left by the deceased showing that he was in great stress and depression. The wife of the deceased had made a statement that deceased was a frustrated man and was in the habit of drinking. The Apex Court in that case, in fact, quashed the charge-sheet on the ground that ingredients of abetment were totally absent. 16. It would also be profitable to make reference to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of (Satish (Satish (Satish Narayan Ate Vs State of Maharashtra), 1997 Narayan Ate Vs State of Maharashtra), 1997 Narayan Ate Vs State of Maharashtra), 1997 Cri.L.J. 935. Cri.L.J. 935. Cri.L.J. 935. The facts of that case were that the accused was having love affair with the deceased girl. The marriage was settled between them but the accused did not turn up at the time of marriage and,therefore, victim girl committed suicide. It was held that that it was not proved that the accused intended by not marrying that ( 8 ) she should commit suicide or that she was likely to commit suicide. That act of committing suicide was an independent act of deceased. 17. Turning to the facts of this present case,the possession of the truck was taken by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ( Accused Nos. 1 and 2) on 11.9.2000, whereas Sunil has committed suicide on 5.11.2000. The complaint was filed on 3.1.2001 i.e. after lapse of three months from the date of death of Sunil. This unexplained inordinate delay of three months for lodging the complaint was one of the factor taken into account by the Trial Court, which, according to me, was a justifiable consideration. Secondly, Sunil has committed suicide after one to one and half month after losing possession of the truck at the instance of the accused or the bank, as the case may be. If really, deceased Sunil was fed up and harassed due to the transaction and loss of the truck, he would have committed suicide immediately. The time gap between losing the truck and committing suicide was also taken into account by the Trial Court to reach the conclusion that no offence was made out. The act ( 9 ) of committing suicide appears to be an independent act of the deceased for which none of the accused could be held responsible. The view taken by the Court below cannot be faulted with. 18. Having said so, it is true that the jurisdiction of this Court while entertaining criminal revision is limited which is recognized by this Court and also by the Apex Court in number of decisions. Readily available decision is in the case of (C.P.Fernandes Vs. Union (C.P.Fernandes Vs. Union (C.P.Fernandes Vs. Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu), 1976 DGLS 306: Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu), 1976 DGLS 306: Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu), 1976 DGLS 306: 1977 (1) S.C.C. 707: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 135, 1977 (1) S.C.C. 707: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 135, 1977 (1) S.C.C. 707: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 135, wherein the Apex Court has ruled that the Court should not interfere with the trial Court view unless found to be unreasonable or perverse. If two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the higher Court should not disturb the findings of the trial Court. The same principle is reiterated in the case of (Varghese (Varghese (Varghese Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, 1975 DGLS 368: 1976 Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, 1975 DGLS 368: 1976 Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, 1975 DGLS 368: 1976 (4) S.C.C. 348: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 701. (4) S.C.C. 348: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 701. (4) S.C.C. 348: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 701. 19. This Court not being a Court of Appeal cannot reappreciate and substitute its own view ( 10 ) in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction is not only limited in scope but discretionary. The Court interferes in revisional jurisdiction only in exceptional cases of flagrant miscarriage of justice as held by Apex Court in the case of (State of Rajasthan Vs. (State of Rajasthan Vs. (State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha) 1979 DGLS 239: 1980 (1) Gurucharandas Chaddha) 1979 DGLS 239: 1980 (1) Gurucharandas Chaddha) 1979 DGLS 239: 1980 (1) S.C.C. 250: A.I.R. 1979 S.C.1895. S.C.C. 250: A.I.R. 1979 S.C.1895. S.C.C. 250: A.I.R. 1979 S.C.1895. No such case is made out by the applicant." 20. In the light of law laid down by the Apex Court, if one turns to the evidence and findings recorded, in my considered opinion, the evidence has been rightly appreciated by the Court below. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view which can very well be sustained on the basis of the evidence available on record. In order to prove the charge of abetment the accused must have instigated a person to do thing in this case, to commit suicide. No such evidence is available on record. Mere taking possession of the truck and refusal to return can hardly be said to be an act of instigation. 21. In the above view of the matter, no case ( 11 ) is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Revision application is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.