High Court rejected state application seeking leave to appeal against acquittal of teachers accused of abetting deceased colleague's suicide. Court held allegations insufficient to prove abetment and found no serious mental ill-treatment.
Application rejected; leave to file appeal denied based on trial court's reasoning.
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 APPLN2321.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2321 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra, Through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sub Division, Ambajogai,Taluka Ambajogai, District : Beed.
… Applicant
VERSUS
Mr V. M. Kagne, APP for the applicant/State Mr S. A. Ambad, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 3 Mr P. K. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr U. S. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No. 4
CORAM : A. M. DHAVALE, J. DATE : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2017.
2 APPLN2321.2016
ORDER:
3 APPLN2321.2016
(i) On 01.08.2009, when there was celebration of Lokmanya Tilak Punyatithi and Annabhau Sathe Jayanti, all the teachers were felicitated except deceased-Rajabhau by accused no. 4–Smt. Deshpande, who was Head of the Cultural Department. The deceased felt that, it was humiliation on account of casteism and he felt insulted. He has accordingly written a letter (at Exh. 49).
(ii) On 03.08.2009, accused No. 2– Shivraj Menkudale, Headmaster, belonging to general community went to the house of deceased-Rajabhau, who belonged to Cobbler (Scheduled Caste) community and in presence of his wife PW1-Saroj and son PW2 Pankaj,
4 APPLN2321.2016
addressed him as “Chambhardya” and called him not to make applications if he wanted to continue in the service as he has to maintain his children. He also tore the application written by the deceased.
(iii) There is also general evidence that, since two months prior to the incident dt. 07.08.2009, deceasedRajabhau was under depression and he used to tell his wife that all the applicants were mentally harassing him. Accused No. 1–Baliram serving at Girwali wanted to secure his transfer to Radi. Accused No. 3, who is wife of accused No. 1 and serving at Radi and accused Nos. 2 and 4, all were supporting accused no. 1. The resolution passed regarding transfer of accused No. 1 was not approved and it was suspected that it was on account of opposition by the deceased-Rajabhau. Therefore, they were harassing him and accused Nos.3 and 4 had threatened him to implicate him in a case of outraging of modesty.
(iv) On 07.08.2009, accused No. 1 – Baliram Jogdand had intimidated deceased Rajabhau. Rajabhau had left
5 APPLN2321.2016
behind a chit that he was committing suicide due to threat by accused No. 1. Deceased Rajabhau had intimated this fact to his brother-in-law PW9Ramchandra Lokhande, who in-turn communicated the same to his sister Saroj (PW1) through one Pawar.
6 APPLN2321.2016
7 APPLN2321.2016
not felicitated. This cannot be a case of atrocity or abetment to commit suicide. The second incident is dt. 03.08.2009, when accused No. 2 had gone to the house of the deceased and had told him not to make any application. It is alleged that, he was also abused as “Chambhardya” at that time and he was threatened not to make complaints. Even if this fact is accepted at its face value it is not sufficient to drive a person to commit suicide. The third incident is intimidation by accused No. 1 to the deceased, which was the immediate cause for commission of suicide. It is alleged that, the deceased had left behind a suicide note at Exh. 48 to that effect.
(i) In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 , it is held that, where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an 'instigation' may have to be inferred.
(ii) In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 , it is held that, a
8 APPLN2321.2016
reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. More so, a continued course of conduct is to create such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
(iii) In the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench in Criminal Application (APL) No. 332 of 2016 (Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr) on 05 August, 2016, it is held that mere appearance of any person’s name in the suicide note without any specific allegations against such person, will not be sufficient to attract the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC.
9 APPLN2321.2016
10 APPLN2321.2016
other teacher from the school who had attended the said program is examined to show that the active role was played by accused No. 4.
11 APPLN2321.2016
Medical Officer, who had treated the deceased. He could have deposed about the history given by the deceased, the consciousness or the otherwise of the deceased at the time of admission or any reason given by the deceased for consumption of poison but there is no proper investigation in this case.
12 APPLN2321.2016
The deceased has not made any application to the Education Officer or Dy. Director of Education against any of the accused. Even if the allegations are taken at their face value and read in entirety, those do not show any serious attempt to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
and, therefore, this is not a fit case for granting leave to appeal.
rejected.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ] JUDGE
sgp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to file special leave petition against acquittal should be admitted given insufficient evidence of abetment to suicide.
Whether the alleged incidents and transfer dispute created circumstances leaving the deceased with no other option but suicide.
Whether the accused involved in the transfer dispute had sufficient motive to harass the deceased on grounds of caste.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh Kumar V. State of ChhattisgarhFollowed¶36
(2001) 9 SCC 618 · Who else cites this
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Followed¶38
(2009) 16 SCC 605 · Who else cites this
Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & AnrFollowed¶41
Criminal Application (APL) No. 332 of 2016
4 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Baliram Mahadeo Jogdand
Shivraj Vishwanath Menkudale
Sau. Asmita Bhagwanrao Kumthekar
Sau. Surekha Narayanrao Deshpande
A. M. Dhavale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
