K RAMESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. He is a canal contractor. The deceased took canal work from the accused on sub- contract basis and was executing the work by engaging coolies and by investing Rs.30,000/- per week. It is alleged that since 4 weeks the accused failed to pay work bills of the deceased to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and the coolies were going round house of the deceased for their amounts and that therefore the deceased approached the accused and asked him to pay the amount due for the canal work in order to pay the same to the coolies and that the accused threatened the deceased saying he is not going to pay any amount to the deceased and if the deceased is not in a position to pay the amount to the coolies, the accused instigated the deceased to die himself. According to the prosecution, the said utterances are motive for the offence. Ultimately the deceased became vexed with attitude of the accused and committed suicide by hanging with the help of rope and died. The petitioner, except filing copy of the bare charge sheet, did not place any other prosecution record like statements of witnesses and other documents on which the prosecution intends to rely upon during trial of the case. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that death note said to have been left by the deceased was found to be not in the hand writing of the deceased as per hand writing expert opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory. Copy of the death note is not placed before this Court.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel placed reliance on Chitresh Kumar Chopra V. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2009 16 SCC 605 of the Supreme Court, wherein it was held:

(3.) It is contended that in order to constitute instigation, there must be consistent and persistent conduct either by words or deeds pushing the deceased to take decision to end his life and that such continuous activity is not alleged on the part of the accused in the present case and that single utterance by the accused will not constitute instigation as contemplated under Section 107 I.P.C in order to become abetment (to commit suicide). In my opinion, continuous conduct either by words or deeds is required in case those words or deeds do not directly indicate death or suicide to the deceased. But, if the utterance by words is direct, in the sense, that the said words directly address the deceased to do a particular act leading towards death or suicide, then even single utterance in that direction by the accused towards the deceased would constitute abetment under Section 107 I.P.C in order to mulct criminal liability under Section 306 I.P.C. In a particular case, whether the words or deeds have direct effect or indirect effect on mind of the deceased, would be a question of fact which the trial Court has to consider having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence to be let in by the prosecution as well as the defence during trial. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot find in this case that the allegations alleged against the accused do not amount to an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. It is a matter for trial.