Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
Santhosh – Appellant
Vs.
Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition No. 12462 of 2014, Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 12-10-2018
S. Muthukrishnan, Adv., K. Dinesh Babu, Adv.
The requirement of a clear mens rea and an active act to sustain the charge of abetment under Section 306 I.P.C.
Headnote:
Abetment - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 406, 420, 306 of I.P.C. - Section 107 I.P.C, Section 306 I.P.C - The court discussed the legal provisions of abetment under Section 107 I.P.C and Section 306 I.P.C, and highlighted the requirement of a clear mens rea and an active act to sustain the charge of abetment. The court referred to relevant case laws to support its decision to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank employee, was accused of abetting the suicide of a taxi driver by not paying the balance due for taxi services. The petitioner denied any direct link with the deceased and argued that there was no evidence of abetment or instigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to prove the charge of abetment against the petitioner, as there was no direct link between the petitioner and the deceased. The court also emphasized the requirement of a clear mens rea and an active act to sustain the charge of abetment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged abetment of suicide by the petitioner and the lack of evidence connecting the petitioner to the deceased's suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal provisions of abetment under Section 107 I.P.C and Section 306 I.P.C, and the interpretation of these provisions in relevant case laws to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges.
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
This quash petition is filed to quash the criminal proceedings in P.R.C.No.30 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kovilpatti.
2. The respondent laid charge sheet for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 306 of I.P.C. as against two accused persons, in which, the petitioner is arraigned as A2. The charges are that the deceased Gnanaraj was a Taxi driver and plying taxi in Chennai. The first accused viz., Senthil Kumar was running a Travels in the name and style of Sabari. The deceased Gnanaraj plied his taxi under the first accused, for which, a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was balance to him. Further, in the year 2011, the deceased handed over jewels for purchasing of car by pledging jewels to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- and the first accused cheated him by not purchasing any car. Further, the deceased also plied taxi for the marriage of the second accused to the tune of Rs. 47,500/-, in which also the second accused failed to pay the said amount to eh deceased. When the deceased asked for payment from the first accused, he threatened with dire consequences to his life and also since the second accused did not pay the amount, the deceased suffered with mental agony and committed by consuming poison on 07.09.2011 at about early morning 01.30 a.m. Hence the charges.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would raise the following grounds to quash the criminal proceedings against the second accused/petitioner herein:
The petitioner/second accused is a MCA graduate and working in Standard and Chartered Bank, Nungampakkam, Chennai. He never seen the deceased Gnanaraj at any point of time and he used to hire vehicle only through the first accused Travel agent and he used to pay the rent to the same tourist car agent. There is no payment due to anybody. Even as per the charge, there is absolutely no abetment or instigation from the petitioner to commit suicide by the deceased. No piece of evidence to show that soon before death of the deceased, the petitioner abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is also no piece of evidence to show that when the petitioner or the first accused abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide and also when the deceased was threatened by the accused persons and when asked payment for the hire car. The compete charges are bereft of any evidence. Thus, he prayed for quashment of the criminal proceedings against the second accused/petitioner herein.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is clinching evidence to proceed for trial as against the petitioner. There is a specific charge that the deceased plied tourist car for the marriage of the petitioner/second accused, in which, he has to pay a sum of Rs,47,500/- as balance due, for which the deceased was threatened by the petitioner/As and as such, he committed suicide on 07.09.2011 by consuming poison and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the quash petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner/A2 was working in the Standard Chartered Bank, Nungampakkam, Chennai. He used to take car from the travel agent viz., the first accused and no direct link or contact between the petitioner and the deceased. All the payment made through only by A1 to the tourist car driver. As per the case of prosecution, the deceased came from Chennai on 04.09.2011 and thereafter, on 07.09.2011, at the early morning, he committed suicide by consuming poison. Even assuming that there was a threat by the accused, he came from Chennai even as early as on 04.09.2011. Only after three days, on 07.09.2011, he committed suicide. Therefore, soon before death, there is absolutely no instigate or abetment by the accused to commit suicide by the deceased.
7. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in Sanju V.
