Full Judgment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.06.2014 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Criminal Revision Case (Md.No.263 of 2014 and M.P.(Md.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 Benatic Augustin : Petitioner/Accused No.1 versus State through Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
: Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w.
401 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records from the trial court and set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.114 of 2013 in S.C.No.358 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli and to pass order to allow the petition filed by the revision petitioner to discharge him from the case.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu ^For respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha, Government Advocate (Crl.
side) :ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 18.02.2014 passed in Cr.M.P.No.114 of 2013 in S.C.No.358 of 2012 by the Additional Sub Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, dismissing the petition filed by the fiRs.accused for discharging him from the prosecution under Section 227 Cr.P.C.2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.09.1989, one Arumugam met with a road accident and approached the fiRs.accused herein, a lawyer by profession, to file compensation proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter would be referred to as the Tribunal).The fiRs.accused accepted the brief and seems to have obtained some money from the said Arumugam and had not filed any claim petition before the Tribunal from 1989 to 2005.
The fiRs.accused is also running a private school as an avocation.
The said Arumugam has been repeatedly calling on the fiRs.accused at his school for getting the compensation amount but to no avail.
The fiRs.accused was dodging Arumugam on some pretext or the other.
In the meantime, Arumugam was afflicted by cancer and his condition started deteriorating.
Ten days prior to the incident, (i.e.10 days prior to 20.04.2005).Arumugam approached the fiRs.accused and explained to him that he is suffering from cancer and asked the fiRs.accused, if at all would he get any compensation before his death?.
For this, the fiRs.accused seems to have told him, ".After all you are a cancer patient?.
What are you going to do by living?.
Why don't you die?.".
and thus taunted him.
Arumugam left a note stating that the fiRs.accused is responsible if anything happens to him and again called on the fiRs.accused on 17.04.2005 in the school.
The fiRs.accused did not make any payment to the said Arumugam and Arumugam left for his village and returned to meet the fiRs.accused on 20.04.2005.
He met the fiRs.accused in the same school and thereafter, Arumugam is said to have died of hanging in one of the class rooms of the school.
It is alleged that he had used a telephone wire for the purpose of hanging.
On coming to know of this, the fiRs.accused along with one Bose(A2) and Baskaran (A3) stealthily removed the body of Arumugam and tried to dispose it of clandestinely so as to conceal the offence.
When the offence came to light, the police took up the investigation of the case and registered a case in Crime No.710 of 2005 for offence under Section 306, 201 I.P.C.against Benatic Augustin (A1).Bose (A2) and Baskaran (A3).After completing the investigation, a final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, for the said offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where it has been now made over to the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.
In the meantime, Baskaran (A3) died.
At this juncture, A1 and A2 filed discharge applications which were dismissed by the trial Court aggrieved by which Benatic Augustin (A1) has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a charge under Section 306 I.P.C.cannot be framed against the accused on the sole ground that he had exhorted the deceased to die, for, that will not amount to abetment of suicide as required under Section 306 r/w.
107 I.P.C.In support of this contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v.
State of Madhya Pradesh [2002 Crl.
L.J.2796].I have no quarrel with the said proposition.
Just because a person exhorts another person to die, that cannot lead to the inference that the person who exhorted had abeted the suicide of the person.
Unfortunately, the facts disclosed in this case is totally different.
In the final report the police have stated as follows: ".vjphp bgdof; mf!;od; e&;l NL tHf;F rhpahf jhf;fy; bra;J MWKfj;jpw;F gzk; thA;fpf; bfhLf;fhjjhYk; MWKfj;ijg; ghh;j;J fhr Beha;f;fhud; eP nUe;J vd;d gpuBahrdk; rhfBtz;oaJjhBd vd;W jw;bfhiyf;F J].z;oajhYk; kd Btjidg;gl;L MWKfk; vjphpahy; jhd; jd; capUf;F Mgj;J vd;W kuzf;Fwpg;g[ vGjp 17.04.2005 k; Bjjp vjphpaplk; gzk; Bfl;Ls;shh;.".
In other words, from 1989 to 2005 A1 has been continuously tormenting Arumugam, a poor peasant who had approached A1 on the fond hope that he will get justice through him.
For this, there are enough materials on record.
The fiRs.accused is an advocate by profession and he also runs a school.
The deceased has been meeting him in that school and the fact that he had committed suicide in the very school of the fiRs.accused itself shows the gravity of mental torture that the fiRs.accused would have inflicted on the deceased Arumugam.
The conduct of the fiRs.accused in not filing any MACT proceedings after taking money from Arumugam and making him to run from pillar to post from 1989 to 2005 and ultimately when Arumugam was suffering from cancer the fiRs.accused had the temerity to exhort him to die which was take to heart by Arumugam who committed suicide in the school of the fiRs.accused, would cumulatively fall within the fiRs.clause of Section 107 I.P.C.If after the said exhortation, had Arumugam gone to his house and committed suicide then, to some extent, the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the learned counsel will be of use.
On the contrary Arumugam has come to meet A1 on 20.04.2005 and thereafter Arumugam has committed suicide in the school of A1 on the same day.
What transpired between Arumugam and A1 on the fateful day is known only to A1.
Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden is on A1 to explain as to what happened on 20.04.2005.
That can be done only during trial.
5.To cap it all, the accused being a lawyer, instead of informing the police, has attempted to destroy the evidence by clandestinely disposing of the body with the help of A2 and A3.
Therefore, the facts that obtains in this case is different from the facts in the decision cited above.
6.Learned counsel submitted that the police have not even filed the post- mortem certificate and the 161 statement of the Doctor who conducted the post- mortem on the body of Arumugam.
In my opinion, this remiss is not a ground for discharging the accused because under Section 311 Cr.P.C.1973, the trial Court in the interest of justice can examine the post-mortem Doctor and take on file the post-mortem certificate.
Hence, there are no merits in this Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.
7.I smelt fish in this case.
It is stated by the prosecution that Arumugam committed suicide using a telephone wire for hanging.
The police have not filed the post-mortem report of Arumugam for the reasons best known to them.
Normally, telephone wires are used as weapon for strangulation and murder.
But in this case, strangely it is alleged that it has been used for committing suicide.
The post-mortem report will throw light on this aspect.
Has the prosecution deliberately burked it?.
I direct the trial Court to bestow its attention to this aspect and call for the post-mortem report through the police.
The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District under whose jurisdiction Perumalpuram Police Station falls is directed to enquire and submit a report to the trial Court as to why the Investigating Officer had failed to submit the post-mortem report.
8.The incident in this case took place in the year 2005 and till 2014 the trial has not progressed in this case which indeed makes we think that something is going wrong somewhere.
I direct the trial Court to complete the trial in this case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9.With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To 1.The Additional Sub Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Bar Council, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai - 600 001