S.306 IPC | Can't Jump To Conclusions Based On Suicide Note, Contents Must Be Examined In Investigation: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note, one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, the contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined in a full fledged investigation.A single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik K, sitting at Kalaburagi bench dismissed the petition filed by Hanamantraya, who named in the suicide note of deceased Basavaraj who committed suicide by hanging. The bench said, “Generally, the person who commit suicide used to/liked to leave a suicide note naming certain persons as responsible for his committing suicide. Merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note, one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that, he is an offender under Section 306 of IPC. The contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined to find out whether it is abetment within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC read with Section 107 of IPC. But, in order to ascertain this factual aspect, a full fledged investigation is required as well as a trial to be held.” The wife of the deceased had complained that was serving as a teacher at Sasbal Government H.P.S. School and since May, 2022, he was appointed as Principal, as the Headmaster G.N.Patil (accused No.1) was elevated as Cluster Resource Center Coordinator (C.R.C.). She contended that, since her husband took over the charge he was under tremendous pressure, as accused No.1 during his tenure as a Principal did not maintain proper documents. Hence, the BEO/petitioner had been issuing notice to him, to rectify the documents or to maintain documents properly and other accused were harassing deceased Basavaraj, thus, he became fed up and on 12.02.2023, committed suicide. Following the complaint the police registered a case under Section 306 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal code, against the accused including the petitioner. On registration of the FIR, he appraoched the court seeking to quash the proceedings. The petitioner primarily argued that the petitioner is a BEO of Sindagi taluka, during his inspection to the school of deceased Basavaraj i.e., on 09.12.2022 and 12.12.2022, the petitioner issued show cause notices to discharge his official duties and to rectify the documents properly, therefore, mere issue of show cause notice cannot be construed as harassment to a staff to abet him in order to commit suicide, soon before death to attract Section 306 of IPC. Further, it was submitted there is no mens rea or an abetment on the part of the petitioner to attract Sections 107 and 109 of IPC and there is no nexus between suicide committed by deceased Basavaraj and the issuance of show cause notices by the petitioner herein. The prosecution and complainant opposed the plea saying the petitioner is involved in heinous offence and there is prima facie material against the present petitioner so as to attract Section 306 of IPC; the deceased Basavaraj committed suicide on 12.02.2023, as petitioner issued show cause notices to him and harassed him, thus, he committed suicide by leaving death note in his pocket, noting that all accused persons are responsible for his death.The bench on going through the record said, “The complainant registered the case for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, which is cognizable in nature and the fact that, deceased Basavaraj died on account of harassment and abetment caused by the accused persons, thus, he executed a death note. Now investigation is pending, the Investigating Officer has to ascertain the veracity of contents of impugned death note. Therefore, criminal complaints cannot be quashed on the ground that, the petitioner issued show cause notices in the capacity of BEO, but, the circumstances, under which the deceased committed suicide and the veracity of death note requires to be probed.” On perusal of the complaint it said there appears to be a nexus and proximity with the conduct of the petitioner with that of the suicide committed by deceased Basavaraj.Referring to Apex Court judgment in the case of Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2021) 13 SCC 806, the bench said “If complaint discloses prima facie case as to cognizable offence, the Investigating Officer has to probe the matter as per the established principles of law.” Noting that in the instant case, the counsel for petitioner disputed the manner of death of deceased Basavaraj and the involvement of petitioner, thereby, disputing the question of fact, the bench held “The disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima facie case, is to be seen.”Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that as a superior officer, if some work was assigned by the petitioner to the deceased, merely on that count it cannot be said that there was any guilty mind or...

S.306 IPC | Can't Jump To Conclusions Based On Suicide Note, Contents Must Be Examined In Investigation: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

S.306 IPC | Can't Jump To Conclusions Based On Suicide Note, Contents Must Be Examined In Investigation: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers