WILSON GODINHO Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant seeks his release on bail in anticipation of arrest by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 438 CrPC,1973. Heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Gautami Kamat, learned Advocate for the applicant, who submitted at the outset that the custodial interrogation of the applicant was not required in an offence under Sec. 306 IPC. It was his contention looking to the scene of Crime that it was a case of murder and not suicide. He referred to the complaint of the sister of the deceased dtd. 18/01/2020 and adverted to the WhatsApp message to submit that it could not have been typed by the deceased within a minute and which he proceeded to demonstrate in Court. It was also his contention that the WhatsApp message purportedly from the deceased relating to his suicide did not co-relate with the WhatsApp chat which the deceased had with his friend which showed minimal grammatical errors unlike those in the WhatsApp message. It was his contention that it was for the Investigating Agency to find out whether the note was planted and whether it was a case of murder or suicide. He placed reliance in Joginder Kumar v/s. State of UP and others [1994 4 SCC 260], and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v/s. State of Maharashtra and others [(2011) 1 SCC 694] in support of his contention.

(2.) The gun allegedly used for the suicide was with the Police and so too the phone. He further contended that the intervenor had disturbed the scene of Crime which was an unrebutted position before going to the Police and reporting the incident. The applicant no sooner had learnt of the WhatsApp message had gone to the Police Station without being armed with an order of anticipatory bail in his favour. He was a family man with business and his reputation was at stake and therefore only because there was a public outcry, there was no basis to arrest the applicant and seek his custodial interrogation. He placed further reliance in The State of Maharashtra v/s. Anurag Anirudh Sing [2016 SCC online Bombay 909] and submitted that no recovery was to be made at his instance. He was ready to cooperate and give his statement to the Police and therefore he had to be secured with the favourable order of bail in anticipation of arrest.

(3.) Shri P. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State invited attention to the ingredients of the offence of abetment to suicide under Sec. 306 IPC and submitted that the intention of the applicant to recover the money from the deceased amply covered these ingredients. It was his contention that the State was investigating the angle also of murder based on the doubt expressed by the intervenor in her complaint to the Police. On a detailed scene of U.D. Occurrence Panchanama being drawn at the spot, the 0.32 bore revolver containing bullets and empty case were attached under the Panchanama. The Inquest Panchanama was drawn over the dead body of Prakash and referred to the Police Surgeon to ascertain the exact cause of death. The Forensic Surgeon had certified the cause due to "cranio-cerebral damage as a result of perforating firearm missile injury which was ante-mortem and fresh at the time of death and necessarily fatal". The intervenor in her written complaint alleged that the applicant and one Tahir in furtherance of their common intention had started threatening and pressuring the deceased for the repayment of the amount invested in respect of the property transaction and development situated at Voilem Bhat, Merces which was stopped by the villagers of Merces and thereby forcing her brother to shoot himself thereby abetting him to commit suicide.