THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1652 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The petitioners are Accused Nos.13 and 14 in Sessions Case No.243 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge at Chittoor, which was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. As Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2010 filed by them seeking discharge was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by his order, dated 13.07.2010, they approached this Court and filed the present Revision. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: - On 10.06.2008, morning at about 6 am., the de facto complainant received information through the villagers over the phone that his father was lying in front of his sister’s house compound wall and subsequently, when himself, his sister- Bhagyavathi and her husband went there, they found him dead. It is further alleged that the sister of de facto complainant got second marriage with one Mohanswamy (A-1) and have disputes with Mohanswamy’s first wife (A-2) and her children (A-3 and A-4). While so, A-2 requested the villagers to do justice to her and her children and that the villagers questioned Bhagyavathi and her father, who is the deceased, about their behaviour. Then the deceased got into depression about his daughter- Bhagyavathi and the behaviour and mental harassment of A-1 to A-15, committed suicide by consuming poison and died in front of the house of Bhagyavathi. During the course of investigation, a suicide note written by the deceased was seized, from which it is clear that the deceased got into depression and vexed with the mental harassment of the accused, committed suicide. After completion of investigation into the case, a charge sheet was filed against A-1 to A-15. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, strenuously contended that there are no allegations insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned and as such the Court below ought to have discharged them. He places reliance on the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penumur Police Station and also on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Netai Dutta V. State of W.B.[1] and Madan Mohan Singh V. State of Gujarat[2]. Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. In the light of the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court looked into the charge sheet. From a reading of the said charge sheet, it is clear that the allegations are mostly against A-1 to A-4. Of course, the deceased left a suicide note wherein he has stated that he is taking the extreme step of committing suicide because of the harassment meted out by him at the hands of the accused including the petitioners herein. Excepting the said allegation against the petitioners, there is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioners. In Netai Dutta’s case (one supra), referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court has taken a view that simply because a person committed suicide and there is an omnibus allegation against the accused, it cannot be construed that the accused also is responsible for the said unnatural death. It may be apt to refer to paras 5 and 6 of the said judgment, which reads as under: - “There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the workplace. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 160, B.L.Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two years and that the suicide took place on 16.02.2001. It cannot be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of “abetment” have been stated in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or 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, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The Explanation to Section 107 says that any willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of “abetment.” In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. In Madan Mohan Singh’s case (2nd supra) also, the Supreme Court has taken a similar view. Para 13 of the said judgment reads as under: - “It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to brig about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant-accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in the present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he has to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta V. State of W.B. ((2205) 2 SCC 659), this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused.” In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and as there are no specific allegations against the petitioners except a bald allegation that all the accused, including the petitioners herein are responsible for the deceased to commit suicide, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be discharged. Accordingly, this Revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are discharged from the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 243 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge at Chittoor. ____________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 09th November 2010 dr [1] (2005) 2 SCC 659 [2] (2010) 8 SCC 628