PERISETTY SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner/A-2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in P.R.C. 42 of 2005 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Venkatagiri relating to offences punishable under Sections 355, 306/107 IPC.

(2.) The deceased Salapakshi Gopi was studying Senior Intermediate course in S.B.M. College, Venkatagiri in the year 2004. The 2nd respondent/defactocomplainant is father of the deceased boy. A-1, A-3 and A-8 are brothers. A-7 is son of A-8. A-9 is son of A-11 A-2, A-5, A-10 and A-11 are stated to be friends of A-11. A-4 is related to A-1. It is alleged that the deceased started teasing Gollapalli Bhargavi who is A-1's daughter studying Senior Intermediate course in the same college as that of the deceased and that on 05.08.2004 at about 11.15 hours, the deceased entered into class room of Bhargavi and threatened her by indecent words and demanded her to marry him and proclaimed that he would kill her and kill himself if she refused to marry him. Naturally Bhargavi informed the same to her father A-1 and other family members. She reported the same in Venkatagiri police station where case in Crime No. 104 of 2004 was registered for offences punishable under sections 509 and 506 IPC against the deceased; and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet in C.C. No. 215 of 2004 against the deceased in Magistrate Court at Venkatagiri. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent admitted the deceased in Aditya Junior College, Nellore in Intermediate course to prevent him from meeting and teasing Bhargavi. It is alleged that when the deceased came to Venkatagiri during Pongal holidays, he found Bhargavi proceeding towards her house from National Book Shop on 17.01.2005 at about 2.00 p.m and went to her on his Hero Honda Motor cycle and teased her using filthy language and caught hold of her right hand and dragged her in public view and that it was witnessed by A-7 who is cousin of Bhargavi and he questioned the deceased about it and that the deceased beat A-7 with hands and legs causing injuries to him. On report given by Bhargavi, the Venkatagiri police registered another case in Crime No. 14 of 2005 against the deceased for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323 IPC. It is further alleged that on the same day at about 18.00 hours, the deceased gave another report to the Venkatagiri police to the effect that A-1, A-3, A-4, A-7 and A-8 and some others forcibly took him to Ice factory of A-6 by catching hold of his hands and wrongfully confined him and beat him with hands and legs, that A-7 beat him with stick and forced him to drink urine and on his refusal A-7 washed his face with that urine and humiliated him with an intention to dishonour him. The police registered another case in Crime No. 15 of 2005 on that report given by the deceased, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 IPC. After getting the deceased and A-7 treated in Government hospital, Venkatagiri, the Inspector of Police handed over the deceased as well as A-7 to their elders on condition of producing both of them on the next day for further investigation. But, on 18.01.2005 both the deceased and A-7 did not turn up in the police station. Thereupon the police arrested the deceased at his house on 18.0.1.2005 at 9.00 hours and brought him to the police station at 10.00 hours and produced him before the Magistrate at about 15.30 hours along with remand report and the Magistrate remanded the deceased to judicial custody at 4.45 p.m, along with another accused Ega Venkatarami Reddy in another Crime No. 25 of 2001 of Rapur police station. It is stated that as it was late evening, there was no time to reach Sub Jail at Gudur in time to admit them, they were brought to Venkatagiri police station and were kept in lockup after due search and that the 2nd respondent came to the police station and handed over one bed sheet and white dhoti to the deceased through the police as it was winter season and that at about 2.00 a.m. the deceased requested the police constable on sentry duty to keep him outside as he was allegedly suffering from stomach-ache and that therefore, the deceased was allowed to sleep outside the lockup, while the police constable was attending to his sentry duty and that when the sentry constable went outside the police station to make phone call to the Head Constable as telephone of the police station was not in order, to inform him about the alleged stomach ache of the deceased and returned to the police station as S.T.D booth was also closed, the sentry constable found the deceased missing and that after search, dead body of the deceased was found hanging to ceiling fan hook with the help of white dhoti in front of wireless room in the upstairs of the police station. On that incident, case in Crime No. 16 of 2005 was registered under Section 176 Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed the present charge against A-1 to A-11 for offences punishable under Sections 306/107 and 355 I.P.C. Alleging that because of the incident covered by Crime No. 15 of 2005 which caused insult, dishonour and humiliation, the deceased put an end to his life as he could not face the society.

(3.) It may be noticed that except as against A-7, there is no allegation against any other accused that the deceased was insulted or humiliated or dishonoured by asking him to drink urine and when he refused to do so, his face was washed with urine. No material is placed to show that A-2 was also named in the report covered by Crime No. 15/2005. Therefore, when the petitioner/A-2 was not responsible for the alleged dishonour or humiliation caused to the deceased, they cannot be said to have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. As per allegations in the charge sheet, it was A-7 alone who is stated to have committed offence punishable under Section 355 IPC of assaulting the deceased or using criminal force against the deceased with intent to dishonour him. In any event, the alleged incident of washing face of the deceased with urine is said to have occurred on 17.01.2005. Subsequently the deceased was set free from the Ice factory and the deceased went to the police station and gave report about the incident which took place in the Ice factory, which report was registered as case in Crime No. 15 of 2005 by the Venkatagiri Police. After registration of Crime No. 15 of 2005 the police sent the deceased to Government hospital for his examination and treatment. Thereafter, the police handed over the deceased to his family members asking him to come to the police station on the next day i.e. on 18.01.2005 when the deceased did not turn up on 18.01.205 in the police station, the police went and arrested the deceased on that day. Long time elapsed from the alleged insult, dishonour and humiliation which took place in Ice factory on 17.01.2005 and the deceased committing suicide in the police station in early hours of 19.01.2005. If really the deceased felt so much insulted, humiliated or dishonoured and did not find face to show the same to the public, the deceased would have taken drastic decision of ending his life even after coming out of the Ice factory on 17.01.2005 before going to the police station for giving report in Crime No. 15 of 2005. At this stage, it may be recalled that on 05.08.2004 itself, the deceased while teasing Bhargavi in her class room proclaimed to kill her and to kill himself in case she refuses to marry him. On 17.01.2005, the deceased is stated to have tried to outraged modesty of Bhargavi by catching her hand and dragging her in public when she was going from National Book shop situated at Nagari Centre of Venkatagiri. Having failed in his attempts to convince Bhargavi by adopting all means, the deceased went to the incident of causing physical harm and dishonour to modesty of Bhargavi in public in desperate manner. If proclamation of the deceased said to have made on 05.08.2004 is remembered at this juncture, it cannot be said that the deceased committed suicide because of the alleged incident which took place in the Ice factory. The alleged incident which took place did not take place was not in public. Even if the alleged incident is true, it was said to have been committed at a private place to which the general public have no access. Therefore, it cannot be said that the incident which took place on 17.01.2005 inside Ice factory premises is the direct cause for the deceased to commit suicide. At any rate, the petitioner/A-2 is not named by the deceased in his report in Crime No. 15 of 2006 as the person who took him forcibly to the Ice factory where the deceased is stated to have been humiliated and insulted. Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner/A-2 in P.R.C. No. 42 of 2005 even if allegations in the charge sheet are perused as they are. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for relief in this petition.