Rama Sambhaji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

... Mr. Govind G. Suryawanshi Advocate for Applicant. Mr. N.R. Dayama, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Ms. Laxmi R. Thakur Advocate for Respondent No.2 ( Appointed )

¶14

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 2^nd JANUARY, 2025

¶16

ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :

¶17

1. Present Application has been filed for quashing the First

¶18

Information Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 270 of

¶19

cria-358.24

¶20

2

¶21

2023 dated 17^th September 2023 registered with Mukhed Police Station, Taluka-Mukhed, District-Nanded for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi for the applicant, learned APP Mr. Dayama, for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Ms. Thakur appointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2.

¶23

Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been arrayed as accused No.1, however the suicide note which has been left by the deceased Bhanudas would show that there was no overt-act committed by the applicant. The land belonging to the applicant is not adjacent to the land of the deceased so that there could have been any loss to the deceased or gain to the applicant. It appears that there was a dispute raised by the deceased since last about two years in respect of the canal. The suicide note blames everybody stating that nobody was in his favour. The ingredients of the offence under Section 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code are not at all attracted, so also there was no question of common intention of

¶24

cria-358.24

¶25

3

¶26

the applicant with the co-accused. Therefore, it would be unjust to ask the applicant to face the trial.

¶27

Learned APP as well as learned Advocate appointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that the name of the present applicant is mentioned in the suicide note as the person who was responsible for the death of deceased Bhanudas. Statements of witnesses are also supporting. It has been stated that the present applicant, who is having land adjacent to the land of the deceased, raised dispute by throwing stones in the canal near the boundary of the field. Though Bhanudas was fighting, nobody supported him. Now, the charge-sheet is filed with the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukhed, District-Nanded on 15^th February 2024, let the trial be conducted.

¶28

Respondent No.2, informant is the son of the deceased. In the FIR he has stated that he resides at Nanded at present for NEET Classes. It is also stated that though they are from village Hangarga, the construction of house was in progress at Hangarga and therefore, his father Bhanudas, mother and two brothers were residing in the rented premises at village Degloor.

¶29

cria-358.24

¶30

4

¶31

Bhanudas used to go up and down to look-after his 35 acres of land in Hangarga. Informant was informed around 10.00 a.m. on 25^th June 2023 by his maternal uncle that Bhanudas has consumed poisonous medicine around 8.00 p.m. on the previous day and has been admitted to Finix Hospital, Nanded. The informant went to hospital, where he found that his father was in unconscious state and was under treatment. While under treatment on 17^th July 2023 when need was felt for money, informant searched for ATM Card of the deceased. At that time he found note on a chit. The fact was then informed by him to the relatives. Unfortunately Bhanudas expired on 29^th August 2023. Thereafter the FIR has been lodged on the basis of the said chit. The statements of the witnesses are almost on the same line. They have tried to say that the applicant has his land adjacent to the land of Bhanudas. However, it is to be noted from the statement of witness Ramesh Ware, who is father-inlaw of Bhanudas, that he was cultivating the said land on behalf of or for Bhanudas. But then he says that since last two years there was dispute on account of throwing of stones in the canal adjacent to the boundary of Gut No.80. He has not explained as to where the dispute was raised, whether any action before Tahsildar or Civil Court was taken on behalf of Bhanudas or by

¶32

cria-358.24

¶33

5

¶34

Bhanudas. Mere statement that there was dispute, will not be sufficient. If there was no action for assertion of right, denial of such right cannot be considered. Mother of the deceased Bhanudas has also given similar statement. So also the widow of Bhanudas has also given similar statement. She further states that around 5.00 p.m. of 24^th June 2023 Bhanudas had left home i.e. at Degloor by saying that he is going to purchase vegetables. He did not return till night, but around 10.00 p.m. she was informed by her uncle that Bhanudas has consumed poisonous medicine and has been taken to Nanded for treatment. She went to Finix Hospital at Nanded, where she found her husband in unconscious state, where the informant has also gone. She states that her brother Shivraj had given her bag which was on the person of her husband. When need arose for money, they searched for the ATM Card of deceased Bhanudas, which they could found in the pocket of the shirt which Bhanudas was wearing on the day of incident. The ATM Card was found along with the chit. Thus, it is to be noted that even from her statement we are unable to get that there was any overt-act attributed to the applicant. It is not her case also that on the day of incident applicant had met Bhanudas.

¶35

cria-358.24

¶36

6

¶37

Now turning towards the chit, it is to be noted that it is stated to be written by Bhanudas and the handwriting is identified by the son. Therefore, prima facie, we accept that it is in the handwriting of the deceased. The note / chit runs thus:-

¶38

“ ek÷;k ‘ksrkr dkyok e/;s ik.kh vk.kqu lksMY;kewGs eh R;kpk ukokoj tho nsr vkgs dkj.k gs gk dkyok ek>k vlqu lq/nk ;kph /kedh nsoqu vkEgh nxM dk<r ukgh gs ik.kh ;soq nsr ukgh dkj.k ek÷;k cktqyk dks.kh ukgh eh ,dVk vkgs eyk gs =kl lgu >kyk ukgh gs rdzkj nksu o”kkZiklqu vkgs eyk 10 QqV tkxk ?ksmu gs vxksnj ek÷;k lkscr ,dne izsekus jkghys uarj jLrk >kyk dh nxM Vkdqu iqUgk ek÷;k lkscr rdjhjh dsyh eh ,dne ‘kkgq o xjhc ek.kql vkgs- gs ek÷;k MksD;kP;k oj xsy Eg.kqu eh ;kapk =kl daVkGqu tho nsr vkgs eyk gaxjxk ¼i-d-½ ;sFkhy xkokr ;kaph U;k; dj.kkj ,dgh ek.kql ukgh eyk ukQj J/nk Js;’k Jou Jhdkar ekQ djk dh eh dksukdMs tkoq eyk dks.khgh lkFk fnyk fdaok vkEgh rqeP;k lkscr vkgs eyk nqljk ekxZ uOgrk Eg.kqu eh tho nsr vkgs- eyk =kl ns.kkjk lekt gkVdj ikVhy vkgs- jke dkacGs gaxjxk 1½ rqG’khjke ckykth irkGs gaxjxk 2½ ;kno ckykth irkGs gaxjxk 3½ izdk’k ckykth irkGs gaxjxk 4½ lqHkk”k jktjke irkGs gs 4 feGqu eyk =kkl gksrk Eg.kqu eh tho nsr vkgs eyk ;kph U;k; feGkok iksyhl LVs’ku eq[ksM ftYgk ukansM fpB~Bh Hkkuqnkl euksgjjko nLrqjs gaxjxk-

¶39

vkiyk Hkkuqnkl-

¶40

J/nk rq Vsa’ku ?ksoq udks eyk ekQ dj”

¶41

cria-358.24

¶42

7

¶43

. English translation of the said note / chit reads as under:-

¶44

“ I am giving my life (committing suicide) because of the water being brought in the canal in my field. Even though this canal is mine, I am being threatened (by them) that we will not remove the blocked stones and will not allow water to flow. Because I have no one by my side, I am alone. I cannot bear this. This complaint has been for two years. They took 10 feet of my space, these people behaved well with me initially, then when the road was constructed, placed stones and complained again to me. I am a very simple and poor person. Because it is gone over my head, I am dying because I am tired of it. Not a single person in Hangarga village can give justice to me on this matter. Shraddha, Shreyash, Shravan, Shrikant, I am sorry, whom do I go? No one supported me or said we are with you. I am giving my life because I had no other choice. The community that is bothering/troubling me is Hatkar Patil. Ram Kamble, Hangarga, 1) Tulshiram Balaji Patale, Hangarga, 2) Yadav Balaji Patale, Hangarga, 3) Prakash Balaji Patale, Hangarga 4) Subhash Rajaram Patale, these four together were troubling me, so I am giving up (my life). I want justice. Police Station, Mukhed, DistrictNanded, A letter from Bhanudas Manoharrao Dasture, Hangarga.

¶45

Yours only,

¶46

Bhanudas

¶47

Shraddha you don’t worry. “

¶48

(Translated by Senior Translator and Interpreter, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)

¶49

cria-358.24

¶50

8

¶51

From the above contents, it can be seen that Bhanudas had grievance regarding non removal of the stones from the canal, which he says that it was belonging to him. But then in this chit also he has not mentioned that any legal action was taken by him or not. Further, it is stated that nobody was supporting him and therefore, he felt that he has been left with no option. At one place he says that he is troubled by Hatkar Patil community. But then the present applicant is not from that community. What was the acts of harassment given to him have not been given in detail. Mere mention of the word “harassment” is not sufficient. There was no overt-act attributed which amounts to abetment within Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The legal position that stands, can be considered from the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilip S/o Ramrao Shirasao and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4328 , Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 Cri.L.J. 2796; Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujrat and another, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628; S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan reported in 2010 All MR (Cri) 3298 (S.C.) ., Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 . This Court has already considered the legal position in the matter of Uddhav Bhaurao Shinde vs. the State of

¶52

cria-358.24

¶53

9

¶54

Maharashtra and another (Criminal Application No.1067 of 2023, decided on 9^th December 2024) .

¶55

Thus, the perusal of the entire material in the charge-sheet including the FIR, will not make out an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code much less with common intention i.e. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It would be therefore, unjust to ask the applicant to face the trial. Though the amendment has not been carried out, as in the meantime charge-sheet has been filed, we have no hesitation in quashing the FIR, Charge-sheet as well as the further proceedings arising out of the same. Hence we proceed to pass the following order:-

¶56

O R D E R

¶57

(I) The Application stands allowed.

¶58

(II) The Charge-sheet No.29 of 2024 i.e. proceedings in R.C.C. No.67 of 2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukhed, District-Nanded for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of the the First Information Report vide Crime No. 270 of 2023 dated 17^th September 2023 registered with Mukhed

¶59

cria-358.24

¶60

10

¶61

Police Station, Taluka-Mukhed, District-Nanded stands quashed and set aside as against applicant - Rama s/o Sambhaji Kamble.

¶62

(III) Fees of learned Advocate Ms. Laxmi R. Thakur, who is appointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs.5,000/-, to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad.

¶63

[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE

¶64

asb/JAN25

Rama Sambhaji Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Sambhaji Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav S/O. Raosaheb Thorat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vaibhav S/O. Raosaheb Thorat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anjumane Flah Bahbudi Dehati Akhliyati Khawatin Sainagar Nanded through Secretary Vs Vandana Krushna the Secretary and Another

Govind Yadav Bade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ashwini W/O. Mahesh Bhogam and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Indrajitsing Charansing Dafedar and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another