Allowed

Balasaheb S/O. Sambhaji Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2019APPLN/2616/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing application, the High Court dismissed the FIR and charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC and SC/ST Act. The court found a ten-day delay in filing the FIR post-suicide, noted absence of suicide note, and held that evidence failed to prove the applicant instigated or aided the suicide.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report and consequent charge-sheet were quashed and set aside.

Balasaheb S/O. Sambhaji Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2616 OF 2018

¶5

Balasaheb S/o Sambhaji Pawar
Age- 50 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o village Hatani, Tq. Umri,
Dist. Nanded.

¶6

..APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1.The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Sub-Inspector,
Umri Police Station,
Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded.

¶9

2.Hanumant S/o Vyankati Pawar
Age-24 years, Occ : Labour,
R/o village Hatani, Tq-Umri
Dist. Nanded.

¶10

 ..RESPONDENTS

¶11

...

¶12

Mr.S.N. Janakwade, Advocate for the Applicant
Mr.S.B. Joshi, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr.K.N. Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent No.2
(Appointed)

¶13

...

¶14

Reserved on : 30.01.2019
 Pronounced on : 07.02.2019

¶15

JUDGMENT (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

¶17

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶18

¶19

and heard finally with the consent of the
parties.

¶20

2.This Application is filed by the

¶21

applicant, for quashing and setting aside the
First Information Report bearing Crime
No.93/2018, dated 13th June, 2018 registered
at Umri Police Station, Taluka-Umri, Dist.
Nanded for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and
further Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes
andScheduleTribes(Preventionof
Atrocities) Act. By way of amendment, the
applicant has also prayed for quashing and
setting aside the charge-sheet bearing
No.55/2018 dated 3rd October, 2018 pending on

¶22

the file of Additional Sessions Court,
Bhokar, Dist. Nanded.

¶23

3.It is the case of applicant that, an

¶24

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶25

¶26

informant Hanmant Venkati Pawar filed F.I.R.
bearing Crime No.93/2016 with Umri Police
Station, Taluka-Umri, Dist. Nanded for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is alleged
in the first information report that
applicant, who was former Sarpanch of the
village, called Vyenkati Mariba Pawar (father
of informant) and told that he would manage
to get sanctioned the loan under the
Government scheme of goat farming from the
bank. It is further alleged in the first
information report that for the said purpose,
the applicant demanded Rs.20,000/- and
certain documents from the father of
informant. After receiving documents and the
amount, the applicant did nothing and avoided
to meet the deceased. Neither the loan was

¶27

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶28

¶29

sanctioned nor the applicant returned the
amount of Rs.20,000/-, which was paid by the
deceased to the applicant. It is alleged that
on 18th May, 2018, the father of the informant
had consumed the poisonous substance, and
therefore, he was admitted in the hospital
and on 4th June, 2018 at about 10.45, father
of informant died during treatment at
Government Hospital, Nanded. On the basis of
aforesaid allegations, the F.I.R. came to be
registered at Umri Police Station against the
applicant on 13th June, 2018.

¶30

4.Learned counsel appearing for the
applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the alleged offence and
he has not committed any offence as alleged.
It is submitted that the father of the
informant consumed poisonous substance on 18th
May, 2018 and died on 4th June, 2018, however,

¶31

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶32

¶33

the first information report came to be

¶34

lodged very belatedly i.e. on 13th June, 2018,
thereby falsely implicating the present
applicant. It is submitted that during the
period from 18th May, 2018 to 4th June, 2018,
the deceased was taking treatment in the
hospital, and when there was sufficient
opportunity, no efforts were taken by the
informant to lodge the first information

¶35

report. It is further submitted that no
suicide note was left by the deceased to show
that the applicant is responsible for his
suicide. It is submitted that perusal of the
contents of F.I.R., charge-sheet and its
accompaniments, the ingredients of alleged
offences including the offences under the

¶36

provisions of Atrocities Act are not
attributed to the present applicant. In
support of his contentions, learned counsel
appearing for the applicant placed reliance

¶37

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶38

¶39

upon the exposition of law in the cases of

¶40

Dilip Ramrao Shirasao and others V/s State of
Maharashtra and others1, Balasheb Ashruba
Fakare and others V/s State of Maharashtra
and others2, Vijay @ Munna Gurkhude V/s State
of Maharashtra3, Ravindra Bhimrao Khillare
and others V/s State of Maharashtra and
others4, Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of
Uttaranchal and others5, Gangula Mohan Reddy
V/s State of Andhra Pradesh6 and Amalendu Pal
Vs. State of West Bengol7. Learned counsel
therefore submits that the ingredients of the
alleged offences are not at all attracted and
as such, the FIR and the consequent charge-
sheet deserve to be quashed and set aside by
allowing the application.

¶41

5.On the other hand, learned A.P.P.

¶42

1 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4328

¶43

2 2017 DGLS (Bom) 520

¶44

3 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2566

¶45

4 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 2966

¶46

5 2012(9) SCC 734

¶47

6 2010(1) SCC 750

¶48

7 2010(1) SCC 707

¶49

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶50

¶51

appearing for the respondent/State, relying
upon the allegations in the first information
report, also the investigation papers and the
charge-sheet and its accompaniments, submits
that the alleged offences are clearly
disclosed against the applicant, and
therefore, the prayer of the applicant to
quash the F.I.R. and consequent charge-sheet

¶52

may not be entertained. Learned A.P.P.
further submits that the Investigating agency
has collected sufficient material against the
applicant and on the basis of said material,
trial can proceed.

¶53

6.Learned counsel appearing for

¶54

Respondent No.2 invites our attention to the
allegations in the first information report
and also charge-sheet and its accompaniments,
and submits that the alleged offences are
clearly disclosed against the applicant. The

¶55

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶56

¶57

allegations in the first information report
will have to be taken as it is. It is
submitted that during the course of
investigation, the Investigating Agency has
recorded the statements of various witnesses,
who support the prosecution case. Therefore,
he submits that the Application may be
rejected.

¶58

7.We have considered the submissions

¶59

of learned counsel appearing for the
applicant, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
respondent/Stateandlearnedcounsel
appearing for respondent No.2. With their
able assistance, we have carefully perused
the contents of the first information report,
charge-sheet and its accompaniments and the
exposition of law in the reported judgments
relied upon by learned counsel appearing for
the applicant.

¶60

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶61

¶62

8. Admittedly, the father of Respondent

¶63

No.2 committed suicide by consuming poisonous
substance on 18th May, 2018 and he died on 4th
June, 2018, however, Respondent No.2 has
registered the first information report on
13th June, 2018 i.e. after 10 days from the
death of his father. No reasons are
forthcoming on record, why there was
inordinate delay of 10 days in filing the
first information report.

¶64

9.Upon perusal of the charge-sheet and

¶65

its accompaniments, there is no material
collected by the Investigating Officer that
as a matter of fact an amount of Rs.20,000/-
was paid by the father of Respondent No.2
namely Vyenkati Mariba Pawar (deceased), and
such amount was accepted by the present
applicant. There is no incriminating material

¶66

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶67

¶68

collected, except recording of the statements
of the witnesses to support the prosecution
case that Vyenkati Mariba Pawar (deceased)
committed suicide due to persistent
harassment by the present applicant or the
applicant intended, abetted or aided to such
commission of suicide. The statements of the
witnesses only make reference to the facts
which were stated by Respondent No.2 to them,
that father of Respondent No.2 gave
Rs.20,000/- to the applicant so as to get
sanction to the file to purchase goats under
the scheme of Government.

¶69

10.Upon careful perusal of the entire
accompaniments of the charge-sheet, it
appears that no suicide note was left by
father of Respondent No.2 Vyenkati Mariba
Pawar. It is also relevant to take into
consideration that the incident of alleged

¶70

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶71

¶72

consumption of poisonous substance by father
of Respondent No.2 took place on 18th May,
2018 and he died on 4th June, 2018. The cause
of death also does not indicate or attribute
any role to the present applicant. Even as
per the allegations in the first information
report, the father of Respondent No.2
consumed poisonous substance and ultimately
died while taking treatment.

¶73

11.The Supreme Court in the case of
S.S. Cheena V/s Vijay Kumar Mahajan and
another8,observed that, the abetment
involves mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without a positive act on
the part of the accused to instigate or aid
in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature
and the ratio of the cases decided by this

¶74

8(2010) 12 SCC 190

¶75

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶76

¶77

Court is clear that in order to convict a

¶78

person under Section 306 of the I.P. Code there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he commits suicide.

¶79

12.In the case of of Dilip s/o Ramrao
Shirasao and others vs. State of Maharashtra
and another (cited supra), the Division Bench
of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur
considered the various Judgments of the
Supreme Court and the High Court and in Para
20 of the Judgment, held thus:

¶80

"20. As has been held by Their
Lordships of the Apex Court that for
permitting a trial to proceed against
the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal

¶81

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶82

¶83

Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to at least prima facie establish that the accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of availability of such material, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. As has been held by Their Lordships of the Apex Court that abetment involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, the said persons cannot be compelled to face the trial. Unless there is clear mens rea to commit an offence or active act or direct act, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option or the act intending to push the deceased into such a position, the trial against the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, in our considered view, would be an abuse or process of law."

¶84

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶85

¶86

13.Therefore, in the light of

¶87

discussion in foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion that considering the allegations against the applicant, it cannot be said that the applicant intended or abetted or instigated the deceased Vyenkati to commit suicide. Unless there is clear mens rea to

¶88

commit an offence or active act or direct
act, which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option or the act intending to push
the deceased into such a position, the trial
against the applicant under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code, would be an abuse of
process of law. Further it is to be noted
that Vyenkati committed suicide on 4th June,
2018 and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 13th
June, 2018. Thus there is 10 days delay in
lodging the F.I.R., therefore, we find
considerable force in the argument of learned

¶89

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶90

¶91

counsel appearing for the applicant that
possibility of concoction and false

¶92

implication cannot be ruled out.

¶93

14.In that view of the matter, the
Applicationsucceeds.TheCriminal
Application is allowed. Accordingly, the
First Information Report bearing Crime
No.93/2018, dated 13th June, 2018 registered
at Umri Police Station, Taluka-Umri, Dist.
Nanded for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and
further Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes
andScheduleTribes(Preventionof
Atrocities) Act and the consequent charge-
sheet bearing No.55/2018 dated 3rd October,
2018 pending on the file of the Additional
Sessions Court, Bhokar, Dist. Nanded, are
quashed and set aside.

¶94

2616.18APPLN.odt

¶95

¶96

15.Rule is made absolute in above

¶97

terms. The Application is allowed and stands
disposed of, accordingly.

¶98

16.Since Mr.Shaikh Kayyam Nagir,

¶99

learned counsel is appointed to prosecute the
cause of Respondent No.2, his fees be paid as
per the schedule of fees maintained by the
High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
Aurangabad.

¶100

 [R.G. AVACHAT] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶101

SGA/-

Balasaheb S/O. Sambhaji Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb S/O. Sambhaji Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree S/O Shankar Deodas and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kamal S/O. Mohmmad Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul S/O. Daulat Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramrao Bandurao Raut Vs the Gram Panchayat Thru Village Devt Officer Kitti Adgaon Tq Majalgaon Dist Beed and Others

Yashwant S/O. Devidasrao Bhore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh S/O. Suryabhan Kale (C-6552) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.