1. The proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur District Ahmednagar on Exh. 23 in Sessions Case No. 03/2009. The application was filed by applicants for discharge. The charge sheet is filed against them for offences punishable under section 306, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under section 32, 33(a), (b) of Bombay Money Lending Act.
2. The application is rejected by Sessions Court. Both the sides are heard. Copies of papers of investigation were made available to this Court.
3. Crime is registered on the basis of the report given by one Smt. Arti. Deceased Anil was her husband. He committed suicide by hanging himself in his house on 03/08/2009. It is the case of his widow that there was some money lending transaction between the applicants and the deceased and the applicants were harassing the deceased due to the transaction. It is her case that some document in respect of the land of the deceased was also got executed in respect of this transaction by the applicants. In the report, she has given some specific incidents which had taken place on 30/07/2009, 01/08/2009 etc.. It is her case that in her presence threats were given to the deceased by the applicants / accused. Applicant No.1 is a money lender and applicant no.2 is his servant. The applicants used to visit residential place of deceased for recovery of the principal amount and the interest and they were harassing him. The last incident took place on 03/08/2009.
4. On 03/08/2009 at about 9.30 a.m. when the deceased was about to leave for temple with the complainant, both the accused came to his house. As the accused had come there, the deceased said to the complainant that he would go to the temple subsequently and so the complainant and her two daughters left for temple. They returned to home at about 11.20 a.m. At about 12.30 p.m. the complainant noticed that the door of the room situated on first floor was in closed condition and latch was put on from inside. She collected neighbours and with the help of the neighbours, the door was opened. They found that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging himself. Initially, A.D. was registered on the basis of report of Smt. Arti. Arti gave report against the applicants and one more person on 11/08/2009 and the crime came to be registered for aforesaid offences. During investigation, the statements of both the daughters of the deceased came to be recorded. Supplementary statement of the widow and the two daughters were also recorded. The material collected by police shows that on 03/08/2009 when the applicants visited house of the deceased, one of the member of the family of deceased noticed that the applicants were giving threats to the deceased.
5. There are statements of some other persons who include neighbours. To them also the information was given by the family members of deceased about the harassment. Thus, at present, there is material like the report given by the widow of the deceased in which allegations are made against the applicants. There are statements of the two daughters of the deceased and there are also statements of some neighbours. It is not disputed that Anil committed suicide by hanging himself. It is the case of the applicant No.1 that he had given the amount of at least Rs. 1,60,000/- for purchasing the land of the deceased and the deceased was not executing the sale deed and so the applicant No.1 was visiting the house of the deceased. Thus, the submission shows that the accused are not disputing that there was some transaction and due to that the applicants were visiting the house of the deceased.
6. It was submitted for applicant No.1 that he is money lender and he has obtained necessary licence for doing such business. However, it was submitted that transaction with the deceased was not of the nature of money lending and there was simply an agreement of sale. It appears that on general stamp paper, the agreement was written. It is the case of applicant No.1 that possession was given to him under the agreement. Inspite of such case, the document was not registered and no proper stamp duty was paid on this document. There are allegations that there was illegal money lending transaction and when there is such allegation, the aforesaid circumstances are relevant. Some allegations are made that applicant No.1 was recovering interest @ 10% per month from the deceased. The aforesaid circumstances, if they are accepted as they are, show that the family of the deceased had seen last the deceased alive at 9.30 a.m. and at that time the deceased was in the company of the applicants. When they returned to home after 11.20 a.m., they found the dead body of the deceased and it is their case that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment of the present applicant. All these circumstances are relevant in this case.
7. The ld. advocate for the applicants submitted that even if the allegations made against the applicants are accepted as they are, the allegations are not sufficient to make out the case of abetment as defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The ld. advocate placed reliance on following reported cases.
(i) 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 3377 Bombay High Court Santosh Nathumal Goenka and another Vs. State of Maharashtra.
(ii) 2007 Cri.L.J. 3343 Madhya Pradesh HighCourt (Indore Bench) Paramjeetsingh Chawala Vs. State of M.P.
In aforesaid reported cases, in view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, the High Courts have observed that if there was money transaction, the accused is entitled to make demand of money and receive it. It is observed that if due to demand made by the accused, the other person commits suicide, the act of the accused by itself will not amount to abetment within meaning of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. In the first case, the prosecution was quashed and in second case, discharge was given by the High Court.
8. Reliance was placed on some more reported cases like:-
(i) AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998 Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and
(ii) 2002 (2) SCC 135 Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra.
In the first case, in view of the facts of the case and the conduct of the accused like telling the deceased âto go and die was held not to be sufficient to prove âinstigationâ as required for the proof of abetment u/s 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Such statement had come from the accused during quarrel. In the second case, it is observed by the Apex Court that if the material placed before Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which is not explained, then only the Court will be justified in framing charge. It is observed that some times the material may not be sufficient to make out prima facie case. There can not be any dispute over this proposition.
9. Copy of judgment delivered by Apex Court in Appeal No. 1301 of 2002 (Gangula Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh) was produced and the attention of this Court was drawn to para 16. It was submitted that from the conduct of the applicant, it can not be inferred that the intention was to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act like suicide. It was submitted that mensrea can not be inferred against the accused on the basis of aforesaid material.
10. On the other hand, the either side placed reliance on the case law 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1331 (S.C.) (Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State) (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). At para 18 the Apex Court has made following observations.
âIt is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for âpresumingâ that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving to the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.â
One more submission was made for the applicants. It was submitted that one Natwar against whom also charge sheet was filed, is discharged by this Court by allowing Criminal Writ Petition No. 84/2011. This Court has gone through the material to ascertain the allegations made as against Natwar. It appears that he was also visiting the house of the deceased but he had not visited the house on third i.e. date of the incident.
11. The facts and circumstances of each and every case are always different. At the time of deciding application filed for discharge, the Court is required to consider the provisions of Section 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is difference between the requirement of Section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C.. The provision of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. shows and it is imperative to record reasons of giving discharge. For doing so in the present case, this Court will have to observe that the family members of the deceased can not be believed and further this Court will be required to observe that the aforesaid circumstances can not lead to inference that there was abetment to commit suicide. There is one more point like delay caused in filing F.I.R.. Only due to such delay, the evidence given by the witnesses can not be discarded if the witness is otherwise found trustworthy. There will be other material in support of the oral evidence in view of the circumstances discussed already. For framing charge, the Court is required to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed that offence. The observations made by Apex Court in the case cited for the respondents show that, it is not necessary at this stage to consider material with a view to arrive at a conclusion that the material is not likely to lead to conviction. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court holds that the Sessions Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed for discharge. In the result, the application stands dismissed.