Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2086 OF 2014
State of Kerala and Others Appellants
Versus
S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
The seminal question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is
whether the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, is justified in quashing the
F.I.R. lodged against the respondents for the offences punishable under
Sections 182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code in exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the
impugned order dated 14th December, 2012.
2. At the outset, we must state that Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned
senior counsel appearing for the State has submitted that there is no
grievance as far as the quashment of the offences punishable under Sections
182, 194, 195, 195A I.P.C. is concerned. Therefore, the central challenge
pertains to quashing of the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.
3. The facts in detail need not be stated, for the controversy really
lies in a narrow compass. As the factual matrix would unfurl, one Sampath
was alleged to have been beaten to death by the investigating agency, that
is, the State police, while he was in custody. His brother, Murukeshan,
preferred W.P.(C) No.13426 of 2010 and during the pendency of the writ
petition, he filed I.A. No.16944 of 2010. His prayer was basically for
issuance of a direction to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
(C.B.I.) to submit a detailed report regarding the investigation so far
conducted and production of the entire case diary. As is manifest, he was
not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the State police and his
prayer was for better and more rigorous investigation. Be it noted, the
High Court by an earlier order had directed the C.B.I. to investigate as
there were certain allegations against the State police.
4. While dealing with the interlocutory application filed by Murukeshan,
the brother of Sampath, the High Court has opined thus:
“The re-constitution of the investigation team by inducting one Haridath as
the Chief Investigating Officer, naturally engendered a fear in the mind of
the petitioner that some attempt was afoot to deflect the course of
investigation. It is that fear which has necessitated this application.”
From the aforesaid, it is clear as crystal that Haridath was the
Chief Investigating Officer. After the investigating team was constituted
by the higher officer, the High Court, as the order would further unveil,
had given immense protection to Haridath as far as investigation is
concerned. We may profitably reproduce the said paragraph hereunder:
“The induction of Haridath at the helm of affairs in the investigation of
Sampath Murder Case need not cause any concern either to the petitioner or
to anybody else. Haridath is believed to be an officer of proven integrity
and of bold disposition. He shall, however, submit a report every three
weeks, under intimation to this Court, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ernakulam, regarding the progress of the investigation. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate shall also monitor the investigation and if need be call for the
case diary for his perusal. The present team of investigation shall not be
dislocated or changed without the orders of this Court. Should any member
of the investigating team feel that there is any interference with his
freedom either from the C.B.I. or from elsewhere, such member shall be free
to address this Court through the Registrar General in a sealed cover.”
5. The aforesaid paragraph makes it quite vivid that the High Court had
really reposed faith in Haridath and also granted him freedom to
investigate and liberty to address the court through the Registrar General
in a sealed cover. The said order was passed on 22nd December, 2010.
6. The said Haridath was assisted by a team of officers which included
the respondent Nos.1 and 2. While the investigation was in progress,
Haridath committed suicide on 15th March, 2012, leaving behind a suicide
note. The said note reads as follows:
“Rajan and Unnikrishnan (CBI TVPM) are responsible for my this situation.
Nobody else has any role in this. They who compelled me to do everything
and cheated me and put me in deep trouble. Advocate Seekumar also has some
role. CJM Sri Vijayan also put pressure on me.
Nobody else has any role in this.”
On the basis of the aforesaid suicide note, the criminal law was set
in motion and the respondents were arrayed as accused. The said situation
compelled them to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and eventually, as has been
stated earlier, the High Court quashed the same.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel that the High
Court has fallen into gross error by quashing the criminal proceeding
inasmuch as it is a fit case where there should have been a trial. He has
taken us through the statement of the wife of the deceased and the other
witnesses. Learned senior counsel has also commended us to the authority
in Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another[1], to show that
the instant case is one where ingredients of Section 107 of I.P.C. have
been met with.
8. Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., has also
supported the submissions of Mr. Rao.
9. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos.1 and 2, per contra, would contend that the High Court has justifiably
quashed the investigation, for Haridath, the deceased, was holding a
superior rank and there is nothing to suggest that the respondents had
instigated him or done any activity that had left the deceased with no
option but to commit suicide. He has placed reliance upon Netai Dutta vs.
State of West Bengal[2] and M. Mohan vs. State, Represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police[3].
10. To appreciate the rivalised submissions in the obtaining
factual matrix, it is necessary to understand the concept of abatement as
enshrined in Section 107 IPC. The said provision reads as follows:-
“107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who –
First – Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly – 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 that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing.
Explanation 1. – A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily
causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is
said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an
act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of
that act.”
11. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of
M.P[4] by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following
effect:-
“Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a
separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of
a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages
with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The
word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about
by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section
107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in
consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of
such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment
provided for the original offence. “Abetted” in Section 109 means the
specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which
a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved
offence.”
12. In Analendu Pal Alis Jhantu v. State of West Bengal[5] dealing with
expression of abetment the Court observed:-
“The expression “abetment” has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we
have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of
suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in
clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly
of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is
committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is
to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us
that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would
be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out
as provided for under Section 107 IPC.”
13. As we find from the narration of facts and the material brought on
record in the case at hand, it is the suicide note which forms the fulcrum
of the allegations and for proper appreciation of the same, we have
reproduced it herein-before. On a plain reading of the same, it is
difficult to hold that there has been any abetment by the respondents. The
note, except saying that the respondents compelled him to do everything and
cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains nothing else. The
respondents were inferior in rank and it is surprising that such a thing
could happen. That apart, the allegation is really vague. It also baffles
reason, for the department had made him the head of the investigating team
and the High Court had reposed complete faith in him and granted him the
liberty to move the court, in such a situation, there was no warrant to
feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the officers belonging to the
lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blame on the Chief Judicial
Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure on him. He has also made
the allegation against the Advocate.
14. In Netai Dutta (supra), a two-Judge Bench, while dealing with the
concept of abetment under Section 107 I.P.C. and, especially, in the
context of suicide note, had to say this:
“In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two
places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant
herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or
intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in
committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has
played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated
or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.
Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant
that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab
Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual
foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make
out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against
the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant
without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge
seriously erred in holding that the First Information Report against the
appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was
absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that
this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the
appeal.”
15. In M. Mohan (supra), while dealing with the abatement, the Court has
observed thus:
“Abetment involves a 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
court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such
a position that he/she committed suicide.”
16. As far as Praveen Pradhan (supra), is concerned, Mr. Rao, has
emphatically relied on it for the purpose that the Court had declined to
quash the F.I.R. as there was a suicide note. Mr. Rao has drawn out
attention to paragraph 10 of the judgment, wherein the suicide note has
been reproduced. The Court in the said case has referred to certain
authorities with regard to Section 107 I.P.C. and opined as under:
“In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to
be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight-jacket
formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case
there has been instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In a
particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation
which may have direct nexus to suicide.
Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the
circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been
such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally
frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an
application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm
opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred
to under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light of aforesaid
settled legal propositions.
In the instant case, alleged harassment had not been a casual feature,
rather remained a matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a
driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with a married woman,
knowing that she also had another paramour; and therefore, cannot be
compared to the situation of the deceased in the instant case, who was a
qualified graduate engineer and still suffered persistent harassment and
humiliation and additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands
made by the appellant, upon non-fulfillment of which, he would be
mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a prolonged period of time. He
had also been forced to work continuously for a long durations in the
factory, vis-à-vis other employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours
at a stretch. Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of words to the
effect, that, “had there been any other person in his place, he would have
certainly committed suicide” is what makes the present case distinct from
the aforementioned cases considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we do not think it is a case which requires any interference
by this court as regards the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court.”
17. We have quoted in extenso from the said judgment and we have no
hesitation in stating that the suicide note therein was quite different,
and the Court did think it appropriate to quash the proceedings because of
the tenor and nature of the suicide note. Thus, the said decision is
distinguishable regard being had to the factual score exposited therein.
18. Coming to the case at hand, as we have stated earlier, the suicide
note really does not state about any continuous conduct of harassment and,
in any case, the facts and circumstances are quite different. In such a
situation, we are disposed to think that the High Court is justified in
quashing the proceeding, for it is an accepted position in law that where
no prima facie case is made out against the accused, then the High Court is
obliged in law to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
and quash the proceedings. [See V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives
Limited and Others[6]]
19. Before parting with the case, we are impelled to say something. Mr.
Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 & 2 has drawn
our attention to a facet of earlier judgment of the High Court wherein it
has been mentioned that at one time the deceased was pressurised by some
superior officers. We have independently considered the material brought
on record and arrived at our conclusion. But, regard being had to the
suicide note and other concomitant facts that have been unfurled, we are
compelled to recapitulate the saying that suicide reflects a “species of
fear”. It is a sense of defeat that corrodes the inner soul and destroys
the will power and forces one to abandon one’s own responsibility. To
think of self-annihilation because of something which is disagreeable or
intolerable or unbearable, especially in a situation where one is required
to perform public duty, has to be regarded as a non-valiant attitude that
is scared of the immediate calamity or self-perceived consequence. We may
hasten to add that our submission has nothing to do when a case under
Section 306 IPC is registered in aid of Section 113A of the Evidence Act,
1872.
20. In the result, we do not perceive any merit in the appeal and the
same stands dismissed accordingly.
..........................J.
[Dipak Misra]
...........................J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi,
August 13, 2015.
-----------------------
[1] (2012) 9 SCC 734
[2] (2005) 2 SCC 659
[3] (2011) 3 SCC 626
[4] (2007) 10 SCC 797
[5] (2010) 1 SCC 707
[6] (2010) 10 SCC 361
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2086 OF 2014
State of Kerala and Others Appellants
Versus
S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
The seminal question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is
whether the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, is justified in quashing the
F.I.R. lodged against the respondents for the offences punishable under
Sections 182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code in exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the
impugned order dated 14th December, 2012.
2. At the outset, we must state that Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned
senior counsel appearing for the State has submitted that there is no
grievance as far as the quashment of the offences punishable under Sections
182, 194, 195, 195A I.P.C. is concerned. Therefore, the central challenge
pertains to quashing of the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.
3. The facts in detail need not be stated, for the controversy really
lies in a narrow compass. As the factual matrix would unfurl, one Sampath
was alleged to have been beaten to death by the investigating agency, that
is, the State police, while he was in custody. His brother, Murukeshan,
preferred W.P.(C) No.13426 of 2010 and during the pendency of the writ
petition, he filed I.A. No.16944 of 2010. His prayer was basically for
issuance of a direction to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
(C.B.I.) to submit a detailed report regarding the investigation so far
conducted and production of the entire case diary. As is manifest, he was
not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the State police and his
prayer was for better and more rigorous investigation. Be it noted, the
High Court by an earlier order had directed the C.B.I. to investigate as
there were certain allegations against the State police.
4. While dealing with the interlocutory application filed by Murukeshan,
the brother of Sampath, the High Court has opined thus:
“The re-constitution of the investigation team by inducting one Haridath as
the Chief Investigating Officer, naturally engendered a fear in the mind of
the petitioner that some attempt was afoot to deflect the course of
investigation. It is that fear which has necessitated this application.”
From the aforesaid, it is clear as crystal that Haridath was the
Chief Investigating Officer. After the investigating team was constituted
by the higher officer, the High Court, as the order would further unveil,
had given immense protection to Haridath as far as investigation is
concerned. We may profitably reproduce the said paragraph hereunder:
“The induction of Haridath at the helm of affairs in the investigation of
Sampath Murder Case need not cause any concern either to the petitioner or
to anybody else. Haridath is believed to be an officer of proven integrity
and of bold disposition. He shall, however, submit a report every three
weeks, under intimation to this Court, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ernakulam, regarding the progress of the investigation. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate shall also monitor the investigation and if need be call for the
case diary for his perusal. The present team of investigation shall not be
dislocated or changed without the orders of this Court. Should any member
of the investigating team feel that there is any interference with his
freedom either from the C.B.I. or from elsewhere, such member shall be free
to address this Court through the Registrar General in a sealed cover.”
5. The aforesaid paragraph makes it quite vivid that the High Court had
really reposed faith in Haridath and also granted him freedom to
investigate and liberty to address the court through the Registrar General
in a sealed cover. The said order was passed on 22nd December, 2010.
6. The said Haridath was assisted by a team of officers which included
the respondent Nos.1 and 2. While the investigation was in progress,
Haridath committed suicide on 15th March, 2012, leaving behind a suicide
note. The said note reads as follows:
“Rajan and Unnikrishnan (CBI TVPM) are responsible for my this situation.
Nobody else has any role in this. They who compelled me to do everything
and cheated me and put me in deep trouble. Advocate Seekumar also has some
role. CJM Sri Vijayan also put pressure on me.
Nobody else has any role in this.”
On the basis of the aforesaid suicide note, the criminal law was set
in motion and the respondents were arrayed as accused. The said situation
compelled them to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and eventually, as has been
stated earlier, the High Court quashed the same.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel that the High
Court has fallen into gross error by quashing the criminal proceeding
inasmuch as it is a fit case where there should have been a trial. He has
taken us through the statement of the wife of the deceased and the other
witnesses. Learned senior counsel has also commended us to the authority
in Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another[1], to show that
the instant case is one where ingredients of Section 107 of I.P.C. have
been met with.
8. Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., has also
supported the submissions of Mr. Rao.
9. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos.1 and 2, per contra, would contend that the High Court has justifiably
quashed the investigation, for Haridath, the deceased, was holding a
superior rank and there is nothing to suggest that the respondents had
instigated him or done any activity that had left the deceased with no
option but to commit suicide. He has placed reliance upon Netai Dutta vs.
State of West Bengal[2] and M. Mohan vs. State, Represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police[3].
10. To appreciate the rivalised submissions in the obtaining
factual matrix, it is necessary to understand the concept of abatement as
enshrined in Section 107 IPC. The said provision reads as follows:-
“107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who –
First – Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly – 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 that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing.
Explanation 1. – A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily
causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is
said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an
act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of
that act.”
11. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of
M.P[4] by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following
effect:-
“Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a
separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of
a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages
with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The
word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about
by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section
107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in
consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of
such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment
provided for the original offence. “Abetted” in Section 109 means the
specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which
a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved
offence.”
12. In Analendu Pal Alis Jhantu v. State of West Bengal[5] dealing with
expression of abetment the Court observed:-
“The expression “abetment” has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we
have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of
suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in
clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly
of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is
committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is
to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us
that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would
be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out
as provided for under Section 107 IPC.”
13. As we find from the narration of facts and the material brought on
record in the case at hand, it is the suicide note which forms the fulcrum
of the allegations and for proper appreciation of the same, we have
reproduced it herein-before. On a plain reading of the same, it is
difficult to hold that there has been any abetment by the respondents. The
note, except saying that the respondents compelled him to do everything and
cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains nothing else. The
respondents were inferior in rank and it is surprising that such a thing
could happen. That apart, the allegation is really vague. It also baffles
reason, for the department had made him the head of the investigating team
and the High Court had reposed complete faith in him and granted him the
liberty to move the court, in such a situation, there was no warrant to
feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the officers belonging to the
lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blame on the Chief Judicial
Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure on him. He has also made
the allegation against the Advocate.
14. In Netai Dutta (supra), a two-Judge Bench, while dealing with the
concept of abetment under Section 107 I.P.C. and, especially, in the
context of suicide note, had to say this:
“In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two
places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant
herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or
intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in
committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has
played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated
or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.
Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant
that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab
Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual
foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make
out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against
the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant
without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge
seriously erred in holding that the First Information Report against the
appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was
absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that
this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the
appeal.”
15. In M. Mohan (supra), while dealing with the abatement, the Court has
observed thus:
“Abetment involves a 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
court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such
a position that he/she committed suicide.”
16. As far as Praveen Pradhan (supra), is concerned, Mr. Rao, has
emphatically relied on it for the purpose that the Court had declined to
quash the F.I.R. as there was a suicide note. Mr. Rao has drawn out
attention to paragraph 10 of the judgment, wherein the suicide note has
been reproduced. The Court in the said case has referred to certain
authorities with regard to Section 107 I.P.C. and opined as under:
“In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to
be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight-jacket
formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case
there has been instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In a
particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation
which may have direct nexus to suicide.
Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the
circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been
such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally
frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an
application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm
opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred
to under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light of aforesaid
settled legal propositions.
In the instant case, alleged harassment had not been a casual feature,
rather remained a matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a
driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with a married woman,
knowing that she also had another paramour; and therefore, cannot be
compared to the situation of the deceased in the instant case, who was a
qualified graduate engineer and still suffered persistent harassment and
humiliation and additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands
made by the appellant, upon non-fulfillment of which, he would be
mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a prolonged period of time. He
had also been forced to work continuously for a long durations in the
factory, vis-à-vis other employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours
at a stretch. Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of words to the
effect, that, “had there been any other person in his place, he would have
certainly committed suicide” is what makes the present case distinct from
the aforementioned cases considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we do not think it is a case which requires any interference
by this court as regards the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court.”
17. We have quoted in extenso from the said judgment and we have no
hesitation in stating that the suicide note therein was quite different,
and the Court did think it appropriate to quash the proceedings because of
the tenor and nature of the suicide note. Thus, the said decision is
distinguishable regard being had to the factual score exposited therein.
18. Coming to the case at hand, as we have stated earlier, the suicide
note really does not state about any continuous conduct of harassment and,
in any case, the facts and circumstances are quite different. In such a
situation, we are disposed to think that the High Court is justified in
quashing the proceeding, for it is an accepted position in law that where
no prima facie case is made out against the accused, then the High Court is
obliged in law to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
and quash the proceedings. [See V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives
Limited and Others[6]]
19. Before parting with the case, we are impelled to say something. Mr.
Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 & 2 has drawn
our attention to a facet of earlier judgment of the High Court wherein it
has been mentioned that at one time the deceased was pressurised by some
superior officers. We have independently considered the material brought
on record and arrived at our conclusion. But, regard being had to the
suicide note and other concomitant facts that have been unfurled, we are
compelled to recapitulate the saying that suicide reflects a “species of
fear”. It is a sense of defeat that corrodes the inner soul and destroys
the will power and forces one to abandon one’s own responsibility. To
think of self-annihilation because of something which is disagreeable or
intolerable or unbearable, especially in a situation where one is required
to perform public duty, has to be regarded as a non-valiant attitude that
is scared of the immediate calamity or self-perceived consequence. We may
hasten to add that our submission has nothing to do when a case under
Section 306 IPC is registered in aid of Section 113A of the Evidence Act,
1872.
20. In the result, we do not perceive any merit in the appeal and the
same stands dismissed accordingly.
..........................J.
[Dipak Misra]
...........................J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi,
August 13, 2015.
-----------------------
[1] (2012) 9 SCC 734
[2] (2005) 2 SCC 659
[3] (2011) 3 SCC 626
[4] (2007) 10 SCC 797
[5] (2010) 1 SCC 707
[6] (2010) 10 SCC 361
