Singireddy Srinivas Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 3 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

Singireddy Srinivas Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 3 April, 2025

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N. Tukaramji

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.2075 of 2024
ORDER:

Heard Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for petitioner/

accused and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC‘) for quashment of charge sheet

in Sessions Case No.70 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Senior

Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhongir.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused for the offence

under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, ‘IPC‘).

4. The relevant facts in brief are that on 15.05.2019 one Enugu

Linga Reddy/de facto complainant lodged police report stating that

his son/Enugu Mahender Reddy/deceased in June, 2016 had

purchased Ashok Leyland Borewell vehicle bearing Registration

No.TS-05-EP-1377 in partnership with his son-in-law/accused.

However, the vehicle was registered in the name of his son-in-law.

Later, on 07.07.2018 the partners had entered into an agreement

and accordingly his son/deceased paid the entire monthly

instalments till 16.04.2019. As per the agreement his son-in-

law/accused should hand over the borewell vehicle along with no
2 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

objection certificate (NOC). However, with an ill intention without

abiding the terms of the agreement on 13.05.2019 called his

son/deceased to the house of one Shyamala Murali Manohar

Reddy and there his son-in-law/accused snatched away the

original agreement papers and threatened that his son/deceased

does not have any right over that vehicle. Again on 14.05.2019 his

son-in-law/accused filed complaint against himself/de facto

complaionant,, his wife, his son/deceased, his daughter and her

husband and threatened them that by foisting case he will send

them all to jail and see that his son/deceased does not get married.

Keeping this in mind, in the morning of 15.05.2019 Whereafter, his

son’s friends viz. Repaka Suresh, Vallamdas Harikishan and

Boddupally Purushotham called his son and made effort to infuse

courage, his son sent them away by informing that he will come.

Thereafter all of them left to attend employment generation works

and in their absence feeling afraid of the threats of his brother-in-

law/accused, his son/deceased hanged himself to the beam. On

their return at about 11.45 a.m. finding his son’s death, on their hue

and cry, the neighbours gathered, thereafter by climbing over the

wall behind their house, entered and found his son died.

Therefore, on his son-in-law/accused’s harassment his
3 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

son/deceased felt threatened and humiliated committed suicide.

Thus his son-in-law/accused caused his son’s death and requested

to take necessary action against him.

5. Upon the report, the police registered a case in Crime No.81

of 2019 for the offence under Section 306 IPC and after the

investigation laid the charge sheet confirming the accusation under

Section 306 IPC.

PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONER

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

entire allegations in the complaint as well as the statements of

witnesses and the materials collected in the investigation are not

making out any prima facie case reflecting commission of offence

under Section 306 IPC. He pleads that the purchase of borewell

vehicle in financial transactions and the alleged threats in that

course by the petitioner said to have caused the incident. But there

is no allegation as to any act of instigation or aiding for commission

of suicide by the deceased. In the absence of any allegation

sufficient to constitute offence of abetment within the scope of

Section 107 IPC much less any offence of intentionally aiding or

instigation, continuance of proceedings would be abuse of process

of law. Further pleaded that even if allegations of abuse is taken
4 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

as it is, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of

Gujarat and another – (2010) 8 SCC 628, M.Arjunan v. State

represented by its Inspector of Police – 2019(3) SCC 315 and

Jangam Ravinder v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.No.975 of

2013 dated 23.09.2023) held that mere uttering the words and

asking some one to go and die or mere harassment does not fall

within the ambit of Section 306 IPC. Thus prayed for quashing of

the charge sheet.

PLEADINGS OF THE PROSECUTION:

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

police report, the statements of de facto complainant and other eye

witnesses are clear as to occurrence on relevant dates and the

acts and utterances particularly against the deceased. Further the

materials are indicating that except for the incident the deceased

would not have committed suicide, therefore proceeding with the

prosecution would be proper. Further the Court below having

considered these aspects had taken cognizance of the offence,

forwarded the matter to Sessions Division and later numbering of

the sessions case is strengthening prima facie case against the

petitioner. Hence the petition for quashment lacks merit and

prayed for dismissal.

5 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

8. I have perused the materials on record and the submissions

of the learned counsel are given due consideration.

9. In the above contrasting pleas, the point emerges for

determination is whether the prosecution materials are make out a

prima facie case for continuance of prosecution under Section 306

IPC against the petitioner/accused.

FACTUAL POSITION SET OUT IN THE INVESTIGATION

10. Perusal of prosecution record i.e. police report, statements

of witnesses and averments in charge sheet are in agreement that

the son of the de facto complainant/deceased had committed

suicide.

11. As per the prosecution/respondent No.1 and the charge

sheet apart from the de facto complainant, the mother and elder

sister of the deceased are arrayed as LWs.1 to 3, friends of the

deceased whose presence was asserted at the time of relevant

incidents is shown as LWs.4, 5 and 6, LW-7 the driver of the

borewell vehicle and scribe of the agreement between the accused

and the deceased as LWs.8 and 9 and rest are official witnesses.

12. Among the material witnesses, the father of the deceased as

de facto complainant in the statement before the police reiterated

the complaint version with some particulars. However except for
6 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

his presence on 14.05.2019 along with other family members

before Keesara Police Station and witnessing his son/deceased

death after returning home from work on 15.05.2019, the rest are

hearsay and on his knowledge. Pertinently it is not even

mentioned that the deceased had informed anything to him.

13. The statements of LWs.1 to 3 who are father/de facto

complainant, mother and sister of the deceased and friends LWs.4

to 6 are on similar lines.

14. It is settled proposition that to bring home an offence under

Section 306 IPC the essential ingredients to be established are: (a)

abetment, (b) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet

the deceased to commit suicide. Further in cases of abetment of

suicide there must be concrete proof either direct or indirect acts of

incitement that led to suicide and mere allegations are insufficient

to convict the accused; (c) Further there must be evidence to

suggest that accused intended his action to lead to the deceased

person’s suicide and there must be a direction association between

such an action of abetment with suicide and the abetment must

have been significant factor in causing suicide.

15. In similar context the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ude Singh v.

State of Haryana – 2019(17) SCC 301 held that the mental state to
7 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

commit the specific crime must be evident when assessing the

culpability under Section 306 IPC.

16. In regard to incident dated 13.05.2019 as per the police

report and the de facto complainant’s statement the presence of

B. Purushotham along with his son/deceased referred to and

thereafter the LWs.4 to 6 on 15.05.2019. As per the police report

the friends came to the deceased and when they called his

son/deceased to give support and courage, his son replied that he

will come latter. Whereas in the statement recorded by the police

stated that while his all the family members except the deceased

were proceeding for employment generation works, the LWs.4 to 6

came there and by asking them to talk to his son for infusing

courage, they left. LWs.5 and 6 claimed that they also

accompanied the deceased to the house of Shyamala Murali

Manohar Reddy where the accused said to have scolded and

snatched the agreement papers, threatened with dire

consequences and also abused his family members.

17. In regard to occurrence on 14.05.2019 as per the de facto

complainant/LW-1, on false complaint himself and his family

members went to the police station, there the accused threatened

that if they ask for borewell machine he will lodge theft case
8 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

against them. Though the presence of LWs.4 to 7 has not been

spoken by him the LWs.4 to 6 claimed that they accompanied LW-

1 and family members to the police station.

18. As to the occurrence on 15.05.2019, in the police report it

has been stated that the friends/LWs.4 to 6 though called his son

to induce courage, his son declined to go along with them.

However in the statement before the police he stated that while

they were proceeding to attend wage employment works, the

friends/LWs.4 to 6 came to their home and asked them to talk with

their son and extend courage, left to their home and on return they

found their son hanging in the house.

19. If the above statements are taken as it is, the following facts

would emerge:

(a) the son of the de facto complainant/deceased and his son-

in-law/accused purchased a borewell digging vehicle in

partnership;

(b) there was an understanding between them in payments of

EMIs and undertaking of the accused to transfer the

registration in the name of deceased with no objection

certificate;

9 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

(c) after payment of EMIs by the deceased the accused did not

keep his word;

(d) on 13.05.2019 the accused called the deceased to the

house of one Shyamala Murali Manohar Reddy where he

had snatched away the original agreement and threatened

with dire consequences;

(e) on 14.05.2019 the accused foisted a case and made the de

facto complainant, the deceased and his family members to

come to Keesara Police Station where again threatened with

filing theft case if they ask for borewell digging vehicle and

scolded the deceased and see that his marriage does not

happened;

(f) After the incident dated 14.05.2019 the deceased appears to

be silent and depressed;

(g) when all the family members left for wage employment

generation, the deceased committed suicide.

20. The sum and substance of these allegations if taken as

established are making out that the accused had refused to

transfer the registration of borewell digging machine in the name of

deceased, scolded, abused, and threatened with dire

consequences and also would lodge a theft case. Even if the said
10 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

scolding/abuse is taken to its farthest and resulted in insult and

humiliation or threat to the extreme, whether such an act falls

within the scope of an offence under Section 306 IPC for abetment

of suicide would be the issue for consideration.

LEGAL POSITION

21. The abetment shall encompass active participation and the

intention to commit crime which shall include instigation, active

participation, intentional facilitation, conspiracy and illegal omission

within the Scope of Section 107 IPC. Thus, credible component

would be the intent of the accused to perfect or incite suicide is

essential to bring home the offence of abetment of suicide. In the

above noted factual context, it shall be held that the abetment

involves a mental process requiring intention. In Chinnu v.

Vijaykumar Mohan – 2010 (12) SCC 190 it has been held that

mere harassment without evidence of intent to instigate suicide

does not fulfill the requirement of Section 306 IPC. In Ramesh

Kumar v. State of Chchathisgad 2001(9) SCC 618 it was held that

words uttered in fit of anger without intent could not constitute

instigation. In Prakash and others v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

INSC 306 it has been held that if the victim was hyper sensitive to
11 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

the ordinary bodiliness, it has been held that difference in common

domestic life it cannot lead to a finding of abetment.

22. Further in recent Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Ayyub and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another –

2025 LawSuit(SC)167 – 2025 INSC 168 considering the aspect of

the deceased committing suicide scared of insult and humiliation

concerning the incidents of verbal utterances and deliberating the

one sided version of the de facto complainant and the aspects of

existence of any semester other than allegations and even if the

alleged events anything mere semester and what was the real

cause of suicide has held as follows:

“18. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1995 Supp (3)
SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the
deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held that :-

“…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of
moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow
thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite means rea on the
assumption that these words would be carried out in all events….”

19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make
out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated
by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about
the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It
has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to
abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC
[See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC
628]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim
12 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of
abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement
to commit suicide [See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal,
(2010) 1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh
Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618].

20. These principles have been reiterated recently by this Court in Mahendra

Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76.”

23. Thus the settled propositions are emphasizing that the

material shall necessarily indicate intent and abetment, instigation,

intentional aid in committing suicide. Further the statutory

requirement under Section 306 read with 107 IPC and the settled

propositions to substantiate abetment of suicide, the aspects to be

established is a direct or indirect act of instigation with clear mens

rea and proximate link between accused action and victim’s

suicide.

CONCLUSION

24. In the instant case, it is clear that except for the

abuse/scolding, threat to initiate criminal case for theft, refusal to

act upon understanding, abusing the deceased and his family

members and even threatening dire consequences are not making

out any mental state of the accused to aid or instigate the

deceased to commit suicide denoting the culpability. Thus this

Court is of considered view that the ingredients of offence under
13 NTR,J
CRLP_2075_2024

Section 306 IPC are not made out even on preliminary analysis of

the material on record. For that reason, continuance of

proceedings against the petitioners would be abuse of process of

the Court as such in consequence all further proceedings against

the petitioner under Section 306 IPC are liable to be quashed.

25. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. The

proceedings of charge sheet in Sessions Case No.70 of 2020 on

the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions

Judge, Bhongir against the petitioner/accused are hereby

quashed.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________
N.TUKARAMJI,J
Date:03-04-2025
ccm