Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.K. Sahoo., J.
RAJENDRA BOHIDAR - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
CRLMC No. 2348 of 2005
Decided On : 12-03-2018
Mr. B.S. Dasparida, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, (Addl. Govt. Advocate), for the Opp. Party
The act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves be sufficient to constitute abetment of commission of suicide unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the consequence of suicide and indirect influence or an oblique impact which the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the mind of the deceased and which drove him to suicide.
Headnote:
Abetment - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Sections 306/294/506/34 - Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code states that a person can be stated to have abetted the doing of a thing, if he instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of such conspiracy, or the person intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. The act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves be sufficient to constitute abetment of commission of suicide unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the consequence of suicide and indirect influence or an oblique impact which the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the mind of the deceased and which drove him to suicide.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 306/294/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against them. The court found that there was no evidence for the allegation under Sections 341/506/306 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code were not satisfied as there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioners intentionally aided the commission of suicide by the deceased.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners could be charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment of suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves be sufficient to constitute abetment of commission of suicide unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the consequence of suicide and indirect influence or an oblique impact which the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the mind of the deceased and which drove him to suicide.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order of taking cognizance of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, but did not interfere with the charges under other sections.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J. - The petitioners Rajendra Bohidar, Manoj Kumar Bohidar, Aditya Kumar Panda, Kamlesh Srivastava and Surendra Bohidar have filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 challenging the impugned order dated 30.04.2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur in G.R. Case No. 373 of 2004 in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 306/294/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against them.
2. On 10.09.2004 on the basis of the first information report lodged by one Chandra Sekhar Mishra before the officer in charge, Paikamal Police Station, Bargarh, Paikamal P.S. Case No. 87 of 2004 was registered under Sections 341, 294, 506, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted only under Sections 294/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer has been pleased to observe in the charge sheet that no evidence for the allegation under Sections 341/506/306 of the Indian Penal Code was found against the accused persons.
3. In spite of submission of charge sheet only under Sections 294/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur after perusal of the charge sheet and statements of witnesses found sufficient materials under Sections 306/294/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly passed the impugned order.
4. Mr. B.S. Dasparida, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there was every justification on the part of the investigating agency to file charge sheet against the petitioners only under Sections 294/34 and the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted.
5. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand contended that there are prima facie materials available on record for abetment of commission of suicide against the petitioners and the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. On perusal of the materials available on record particularly the statement of the wife of the deceased namely Basanti Mishra, it indicates that on 04.09.2004 at about 9.00 p.m. the petitioners came in front of the house of the deceased Prafulla Mishra and called out the eldest son of the deceased namely Surya Narayan @ Bunu Mishra to come outside, abusing him in filthy language. While Bunu Mishra was coming out of the house, his parents refrained him and did not allow him to go outside and they also told the petitioners to come on the next day for discussion. It further appears from the statement that the deceased was not satisfied with the activities of his own son Bunu Mishra for taking liquor and he was advised not to quarrel with anybody and also not to take liquor. After the petitioners left the spot, the deceased was very much irritated and on 05.09.2004 the deceased went to meet his brother Susil Acharya and returned back home on 06.09.2004 in the evening. On 07.09.2004 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased as usual came out of the house and proceeded towards the Office of Tahasildar at Paikamal but subsequently, he was found lying in a senseless condition taking poison by the side of the boundary wall of Office of Tahasildar. The deceased was then shifted to Paikamal Government dispensary where he breathed his last.
7. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties and on going through the case record and the statements of the witnesses, it is apparent that only material available against the petitioners is that on 04.09.2004 at about 9.00 p.m.; they came near the house of the deceased and called the son of the deceased Surya Narayan @ Bunu Mishra and abused him in filthy language and when the deceased and his wife namely Basanti Mishra told them to have discussion on the next day, they left the spot.
8. An offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code would stand only if there is an abetment of commission of suicide. Secti
