Independence in decision-making negates accusations of abetment in suicide without clear instigatory actions by the accused.

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 29.11.2012 passed in Special (Atrocity) Case No.17 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Gandhinagar, whereby the respondent, who is the sole accused in the said case was acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC ”) and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Atrocities Act”).

2. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may briefly be stated as follows:-

2.1 The deceased is the younger son of PW-3, who is the de-facto complainant in this case. The deceased borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the accused for the purpose of purchasing a motorbike. Thereafter, he failed to repay the said borrowed amount to the accused. The accused insisted and demanded him to repay the borrowed amount. Therefore, unable to bear the pressure and tension, that the deceased has consumed poison on the intervening night of 29/30.03.2010 and died. On the information received that he was lying on a road, PW-3, who is his father and other family members reached the said place and they admitted him in the hospital. While undergoing treatment, on the requisition given by the doctor, the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded. He stated in the dying declaration that unable to bear the pressure and tension relating to repayment of the borrowed amount that the has decided to put an end to his life. He has also stated that earlier the accused asked him that he has to put an end to his life, if he fails to repay the borrowed amount. Thereafter, the deceased died while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

2.2 On the report lodged by PW-3, who is his father, a case under Section 306 of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Atrocities Act was registered against the accused. The case was investigated. After holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased, autopsy was held over his dead body. The doctor opined that he died of consuming pest control chemical. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

2.3 After accused made his appearance in the trial court, charges under Section 306 of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Atrocities Act were framed against the accused. He denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.

2.4 In the trial that took place, PW-1 to PW-8 witnesses were examined and 22 exhibits were marked to substantiate the case of the prosecution against the accused.

2.5 At the conclusion of the trial, after considering evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found the accused not guilty for any of the aforesaid charges framed against him and acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment.

2.6 Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the instant appeal challenging the legal validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.

3. When appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned APP Mr.Tirthraj Pandya for the State. Despite service of notice on respondent, he did not appear before the Court. In spite of affording reasonable opportunity, he did not turn up for hearing. Therefore, as it is an old appeal of the year 2013, which is listed on our board under the caption “final hearing of critically old matters of 11 to 20 years”, we are not inclined to further adjourn the appeal. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeal on merits on the basis of the material available on record.

4. We have carefully perused the evidence and the material available on record along with the appeal grounds.

5. At the very outset, it is apposite to note that in order to prove an offence of abet