The High Court of Bombay dismissed a criminal application seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal in a murder case. The trial court held the accused did not abet the deceased's suicide despite prior harassment. Leave was refused, and the application was rejected.
Leave to prefer an appeal was refused and the application stood rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2870 OF 2006
The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant
V/s
Suresh Hari Hire ..Respondent.
Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the applicant
None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J.
DATE : 3RD APRIL, 2007.
P.C.
. Heard Mrs. Mhatre, learned APP for the
applicant. None for the respondent, though served.
2. This is an application for leave to prefer an
appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the 7th
Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions
Case No.103/2005 for the offence punishable under
section 306 IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
21/2/2005 one Harish was found hanging with Ceiling Fan
in the room No. 105 of Shilpa Lodge,Vani. In his
diary, suicide note was found. Thereafter his brother
[2]
Dinesh also lodged a report with the police. It was
transpired that about two months prior to the suicide,
Harish and his friend had been to a Tamasha Theater to
watch a programme. There Harish had some arguments with
the accused/respondent and his brother Ganpat. Next
morning the accused and his brother went to the shop of
Harish and beat hin. His brother intervened but he was
also abused by the accused. About the incident Harish
had lodged a report with the police and police had
initiated preventive action by filing a chapter cases
under section 110 of Cr.P.C. Even after that the
accused continued to harass him by saying how he was
taught a lesson. Because of this, Harish used to be
under tension and was depressed and ultimately he
committed suicide. After trial the learned trial Court
acquitted the accused holding that prosecution had
failed to prove that the accused had abetted Harish to
commit suicide. Taking into consideration the
circumstances of the case, it is difficult to take a
different view of the matter. Merely because some
arguments or some quarrel had taken place between the
two, it cannot be held that the accused had abetted
Harish to commit suicide. I find no substance in the
proposed appeal.
[3]
3. For the reasons stated above, leave to prefer an
appeal refused. Application stands rejected.
(J.H. BHATIA, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal for abetment of suicide should be granted.
Whether the arguments and harassment preceding the death amount to abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC.
Whether the trial court's view that the prosecution failed to prove abetment warranted interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Suresh Hari Hire
J.H. BHATIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court