Allowed

Namdevrao Bhimrao Shinde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Oct 2013APPLN/1426/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that unless there is specific allegation of intent to cause suicide, mere torment causing suicide does not attract abetment under IPC 306. The discharge application was allowed and quashing order set aside without a separate ruling on compounding.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application No. 4087/2012 allowed; impugned order dated 7th August, 2012 quashed and set aside; applicants discharged.

Namdevrao Bhimrao Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

GAG

¶2

cri.appln.4087.12 with ca 1426.13.sxw

¶3

1/3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶5

Criminal Application No.4087 Of 2012. With Criminal Application No.1426 Of 2013.

¶6

Namdevrao Bhimrao Shinde & Ors. :: Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. :: Respondents.

¶9

Appearance =>

¶10

Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. B.L. Dhas, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra. Mr. V.S. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 7^th OCTOBER, 2013.

¶12

ORAL ORDER :-

¶13

By consent heard finally.

¶14

(2) The applicants are the accused in Sessions Case No.36/2012 pending before the Court of Sessions, which case arises out of C.R.No. I 42/2011 registered with Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur. The case is in respect of an offence punishable U/Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960. ( In short, “the IPC”.)

¶15

(3) The applicants filed an application (Exh.No.31) for discharge, before the trial court. However, same came to be rejected by the learned Adhoc Addl.Sessions Judge -1 Latur by his order dated 7^th August, 2012. The applicants have approached this court by filing Criminal Application No.4087/2012, challenging the said order on merits, and praying that the same be set aside and the applicants may be discharged from the said case.

¶16

2/3 cri.appln.4087.12 with ca 1426.13.sxw

¶17

(4) During the pendency of Criminal Application No.4087/2012, the applicants and two others (applicant Nos. 8 & 9) have filed Criminal Application No.1426/2013 submitting that the offence in question be allowed to be compounded. Applicant No.8 Raosaheb Namdeo Lendge and applicant No.9 Vijaya Santosh Lendge are the father and wife, respectively of deceased Santosh. While compounding the offence under section 306 of the IPC on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the accused persons and the relatives of the deceased, seems to be an extremely doubtful proposition, on merits, the applicants appear to be entitled to succeed.

¶18

(5) I have examined the facts of the case. The First Information Report lodged by Raosaheb is to the effect that his son Santosh, who was working as Junior Clerk with Shivaji High-School at Datala, Tal. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded, was being harassed by the applicants. That because of the torture caused to him, by the applicants, said Santosh committed suicide. Even in 'the facts of the case' as appearing in column No.13 of the printed prescribed proforma of the Charge-Sheet, it is mentioned that, the applicants had removed said Santosh from the job and, thereby, had humiliated him which caused him physical, mental as well as financial torment as a result of which, Santosh was fed up and had committed suicide by handing himself .

¶19

(6) Taking the allegation as it is, it falls short of attracting the ingredients of the offence of abetment to commit suicide. The allegation is merely that Santosh committed suicide because of the torments caused to him by the applicants. Clearly, the concept of abetment is entirely different. Abetment requires the requisite mens rea on the part of the abettor. Simply because Santosh committed suicide and simply because the suicide was committed because of the torments caused to him by the applicants, the applicants cannot be held guilty of abetting suicide, unless it is alleged that

¶20

3/3

¶21

cri.appln.4087.12 with ca 1426.13.sxw

¶22

the applicants intended, while causing torments to Santosh that he should commit suicide.

¶23

(7) Thus, apart from the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the First Information Report, and the statements recorded during the course of investigation, allegations levelled in the charge-sheet fall short of constituting an offence punishable U/Section 306 of the IPC. The applicants, therefore, cannot be prosecuted on the basis of such allegations.

¶24

(8) Criminal Application No.4087 Of 2012 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as under :-

¶25

“That, the impugned order dated 7^th August,2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -1 at Latur on application below Exh.31 in Sessions Case No.36 Of 2012 may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently, the application below Exh.31 be allowed by discharging the applicants from the criminal case No.36 Of 2012.”

¶26

(9) In view of this, no separate order on Criminal Application No.1426 Of 2013 is necessary.

¶27

(10) Both the Applications stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

Namdevrao Bhimrao Shinde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namdevrao Bhimrao Shinde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baban @ Rohidas Tukaram Zambre and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ramhari Balasaheb Ghadge and Anr. Vs Ravindra Tanaji Ghadge and Ors.

Munna Khan Rustum Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Abdul Salim Shaikh (Siddique) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vasudeo Pundlik Gujar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Sudhakarrao Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others