Arvind Kumar S/O Dawrka Singh v. Pratik S/O Pramod Gupta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 405/2019 Arvind Kumar s/o Dwarka Singh .vs. Pratik s/o Pramod Gupta and anr. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders of directions Court'

s or Judge'

s orders.

and Registrar'

s Orders.

Mr. R. Kalra, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. V. A. Thakare, A.P.P. for respondent no.2-State. CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 09, 2019 Heard Mr. Kalra, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Thakare, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.2-State. This appeal takes exception to judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions judge-11, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 257/2015. By the impugned judgment, learned Judge of Court below acquitted respondent no.1 of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Deceased is Ashish, son of first informant. He was student of engineering college and was studying at Bhopal. He came to Nagpur on 19.08.2014 and committed suicide on 21.08.2014 by hanging himself in the house. Initially, on the basis of information given by father of deceased Arvind Kumar (PW1), an Accidental Death No. 57/2014 was registered. From the spot, police party recovered two notes left behind by deceased Ashish. As per prosecution case, on 28.08.2014, one girl by name Suruchi

informed elder brother of deceased that due to blackmailing at the hands of respondent no.1, deceased has committed suicide. Thereafter, the offence was registered against the respondent. He was charged for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

In order to prove the charge, in all 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Spot-cum-seizure panchanama is at Exh.-13. There are two suicide notes. Those are exhibited as Exh.-13-1 and 13-2. The learned Judge has gone into those suicide notes in the evidence and also made reference of the same in the impugned judgment in paragraph 18. The recitals in the suicide note, Exh.-13-2, which was meant for police is reproduced hereinbelow: "

मेर鵚꺷मेंट諔鍇सि चुएश滾溴प鵚꺷छेकुछमहि滾溴㞺㝥 ेठ鵚꺷क滾溴ा鵚꺷ै. ु ाई䨜劈टें䨜劈न् 鵚꺷भरचुकቹ१े, आ䨂専滾溴ाक諔鍇मेंयेकर कताु 䨂専रा䨂専रा 鵚꺷बातपेमेंकम䨂専㞺㝥रपर䨂専ाताुऔरमुझे䨂専鵚꺷滾溴ेका म滾溴滾溴ᬻᯎकरता..."

Reading of the same clearly shows that the deceased was having suicidal tendency and he was weak minded person.

Merely because a person has committed suicide, that does not mean that the person who is charged, has abetted the person to commit suicide. There is no positive evidence to show that at any point of time respondent no.1 has abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

Learned trial Judge has considered the evidence on record in correct perspective. Merely because another view is possible that itself is not sufficient to substitute the appellate Court's view in place of the view of the learned trial Court.

Learned Judge of the trial Court, after reading the suicide note has formed an opinion that there was no abetment at the hands of respondent no.1. The view taken by learned Judge of the Court below is not perverse. On the contrary, it is based on proved documents Exh.-13-1 and 132. No case is made out by the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.

JUDGE kahale