Harbirkaur Kalra vs State of Maharashtra

P.B. Varale, J—Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

The applicant is challenging the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated 29-04-2015 passed below Exhibit-4 in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2015, thereby rejecting the application, seeking discharge of the applicant.

The brief facts giving rise to the present application can be summarized as follows :-

The report was lodged at Nagpur City Police Station at the instance of mother of one Rahul, a boy of 25 years of age, studying in second year B.A. was working in a ready made garments shop of the applicant. Rahul was employed since five months prior to the lodgment of the report. Rahul informed his sister Priyanka that the owner and the employer of the shop i.e. the applicant is not fair. He informed the sister that the applicant engages the boys for the employment only of a span of 2/3 months and then removed them from their job. Sister of Rahul found that Rahul was in a depressed mood and was not taking his food properly. Hence, complainant mother asked Rahul to go to his maternal uncle''s place so as to have a change in mood. The mother also insisted Rahul to tell if there is any reason for his depression, but Rahul denied the same. On 24-05-2013, Rahul left his house at about 6 p.m. on his two wheeler. For considerable time there was no contact from Rahul and his mobile phone was also switched of. The family members thought that Rahul might have taken shelter of some of his friends place and he may return late or in the morning. On 25-05-2013 i.e. on the next day, one phone call was received by the mother from the father of Rahul. The father of Rahul informing that Rahul committed suicide in Tahsil office near a school by consuming some poisonous substance. A suicide note was found in the pocket of Rahul. Suicide note revealed that Rahul was carrying physical intimacy with the applicant. The employer i.e the applicant alleged that Rahul is an impotent. The said words caused a serious depression to Rahul. In the report it is stated that the applicant was forwarding certain messages to Rahul and these messages were shown by Rahul to another employees in the shop. The employees cautioned Rahul. Those employees expressed displeasure over the intimacy of the applicant with Rahul. Rahul informed this intimacy even to another employee i.e. the security guard who was engaged in the shop. This employee also cautioned Rahul not to continue with any relationship with the applicant. Though Rahul assured his colleagues not to continue with relationship with the applicant but in fact the relationship of Rahul and the applicant continued. The report further reveals that the applicant used to call Rahul after working hours at some places and the couple used to indulge in the act of physical intimacy. On 18-04-2013, the applicant on a telephonic conversation called Rahul as an impotent and this act of the applicant prompted Rahul to commit suicide, is the allegations in the report. The learned Counsel Shri Shukla, vehemently submitted that the bare facts which are on record would itself make it clear that no offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code can be attracted against the applicant. The learned Counsel Shri Shukla submits that the report lodged at the instance of mother of Rahul is a bundle of different versions of fact. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel submits that the mother i.e the complainant states that in spite of continuous instances of the family members Rahul disclosed nothing to the family members and in spite of the colleagues cautioning Rahul, Rahul on his own will and wish continued with an illicit relationship with the applicant. The learned Counsel Shri Shukla further submits that from the report itself it is clear that Rahul was depressed in life as the attempts of Rahul entering in police force could not bring success to him. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel further submitted that if the sequence of events is taking into consideration there is much time gap between the alleged phone call by the applicant to Rahul and his suicide. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel submits that it is alleged that the applicant made phone call to deceased Rahul on 18-04-2013 and Rahul committed suicide on 24-05-2013. It is the submission of Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel for the applicant that considering the time gap between these two events more than four weeks there was certain sufficient period to the victim to pacify himself and control his emotions, depression and distress mood. Thus, the submission of Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the act of suicide of the victim is the immediate effect of the alleged phone call by the applicant. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel then submits that the complainant also took her own time to lodge report to the police authorities. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel submits that it is alleged that Rahul, the victim, committed suicide on 24-05-2013 and the report was lodged nearly after two weeks of the suicide i.e on 13-06-2013. The submission of Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel is that even this unexplained time gap between the suicide and the lodgment of report shows that the family members probably were prompted to lodge report against the applicant and it was not the act of their will. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel then submitted that the so called suicide note if perused it would reveal that the victim Rahul who was depressed because of the applicant was not forwarding any message or making any call to Rahul. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel submits that Rahul was interested in keeping relationship with the applicant whereas the applicant was not interested to keep any relationship with Rahul. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel then submits that Rahul found that the applicant was not giving any positive response to him, he was depressed and took an extreme step and while doing so he wanted to defame the applicant. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel submitted that in the alleged suicide note Rahul expressed that his suicide note be circulated to media and amongst the reporters. Thus, Rahul was not only depressed but was acting in revengeful attitude towards the applicant is the submission of Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel then submitted that the applicant approached the Sessions Court submitting that the material against the applicant being wholly insufficient and unsustainable for any action against the applicant and the drama of trial would be an futile exercise and sought discharged. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel submitted that the learned Sessions Judge on an erroneous appreciation rejected the application. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel thus prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 29-04-2015 by allowing the present application and seeks discharge of the applicant from Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2015.

Shri S.B. Ahirkar, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the application. The learned APP submitted that the detailed suicide note itself shows that the applicant is behind the extreme step taken by Rahul. The learned APP then submits that the statements recorded by the investigating agency namely the family members support the story of the prosecution.

On perusal of the material placed on record, I find considerable merit in the submissions of Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel. In the report itself the mother of Rahul states that Rahul initially made attempts to enter in the police force and as these attempts could not bring any success to him he started working in the shop of the applicant. Perusal of the statements of the childhood friend of Rahul and the colleagues of Rahul shows that Rahul was engaged in physical intimacy with the applicant for a period of one to one and half months. The statements of those employees who were working with Rahul show that Rahul told these employees and his friends that he was deeply in love with the applicant. The statements further reveal that the friends of Rahul found Rahul and the applicant moving at some places. The statements further reveal that they informed Rahul about the applicant having some association and intimacy with the other employees and cautioned Rahul to keep him away from the applicant. The statement further reveals that in spite of cautioning by his friends and colleagues Rahul continued with the intimacy with the applicant. Perusal of suicide note which runs in 10 pages reveals that Rahul was informed by one of his colleagues that the applicant was having an intimacy with his colleague herein before. The suicide note further reveals that in spite of cautioning by his colleagues Rahul continued the intimacy with the applicant. The suicide note further reveals that Rahul was getting disturbed and desperate when the applicant was not making any call or forwarding messages and he used to disclose this desperation in front of his colleagues. It is interesting to note that in the suicide note itself Rahul states that the applicant was interested with Rahul only for the physical pleasure and he should keep himself away. The suicide note further reveals that there were certain occasions when Rahul had the physical intimacy with the applicant. On the backdrop of this fact, the allegations that on 18-04-2013 Rahul received a phone call from the applicant and in the conversation the applicant uttered the word that Rahul is an impotent and after a span of five weeks Rahul committing suicide and thereafter two weeks the report was lodged against the applicant. There is material in the submission of Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel for the applicant that if the consequence of these events and the telephonic conversation dated 18-04-2013 is considered, the events cannot be said to be of such a nature that the act of Rahul of committing suicide was an immediate reaction. Shri Shukla, the learned Counsel has rightly placed reliance in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar V State of Madhya Pradesh, reported at 2002 Cri. L. J. 2796. In tis case the deceased committed suicide after two days of the quarrel and in that quarrel the words were uttered by the accused that "''to go and die"''. The Hon''ble apex Court referring to its judgment the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 AD 133 : AIR 2001 SC 3837 : (2001) CriLJ 4724 : (2001) 2 DMC 636 : (2001) 8 JT 599 : (2001) 7 SCALE 298 : (2001) 9 SCC 618 : (2001) AIRSCW 4282 : (2001) 7 Supreme 737 and observed that, "a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty".

In the present matter, it is not even the case that the applicant uttered the words directing the victim to end his life. The allegation is that the applicant in a telephonic communication alleged the victim as impotent and the victim who was depressed and disturbed committed suicide after four weeks. In the case of Sanju (supra) the apex Court found that there was material on record to show that the deceased was a frustrated man. In the present matter also, in the report itself the mother of the victim states that Rahul was depressed even prior to working in the shop of the applicant as he failed to enter in the police force. The other material also show that the deceased Rahul was hyper sensitive and extremely sentimental. The statement of the witnesses including his childhood friend and colleagues show that Rahul was getting disturbed and depressed even when he was not receiving any reply or communication from the applicant. The statements also reveal that on one occasion the mother of victim said Rahul to visit some outstation so that there will be a change in mood. Thus, this material clearly shows that Rahul was a hyper sensitive and a disturbed person. The material available on record shows that there is no sufficient material against the applicant to prosecute her under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and with such a weak material there is hardly any case which can be established against the applicant. The order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rejecting the application is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. In view of above, the application is allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b) of the application and disposed of.