GURUNATH LAXMAN GAWLI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-87
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: PANAJI)
Decided on March 24,2017

Gurunath Laxman Gawli And Another Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.M. Badar, J. - (1.) Petitioners Gurunath Gawli and Sangita Gawli who are accused in Crime No.455 of 2014 registered with Police Station, Mulund at the instance of Sunita Bomble, (widow of the deceased Umesh Bomble) for offences punishable under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 32B and 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, by this application are challenging the order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay thereby rejecting their application for discharge in Sessions Case No.680 of 2015 and 278 of 2016 so far as offences punishable under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, (presently Maharashtra Money Lenders Act) are concerned.
(2.) Heard the learned advocate for revision petitioners/accused. By taking me extensively through the entire chargesheet and particularly, through the FIR lodged by Sunita Bomble and statements of witnesses such as Nagesh Bomble, Sanjay Patel, Datta and Shailendra Rokde, the learned Advocate argued that there are several deficiencies in statements of prosecution witnesses and it appears that loop holes are being plugged in by recording statements of witnesses by the Investigator. It is argued that Sanjay Patel, who was employee of the deceased Umesh Bomble had not averred anything against the present revision petitioners-accused. Witness Datta has stated about the stale incident which allegedly took place prior to two months. Shailendra Rokde has stated whatever he heard from the sister of the deceased and, therefore, his statement is also of no assistance for proceeding against accused persons. The charge-sheet shows that revision petitioners-accused have not done anything on the day of incident. The learned advocate further argued that there is no documentary evidence about taking of loan by the deceased from revision petitioners-accused persons. Even the deceased had not written any suicidal note implicating revision petitioners-accused persons.
(3.) The learned advocate for revision petitioners-accused relied on several rulings on interpretation of Section 306 as well as Section 107 of IPC to demonstrate ingredients necessary for constituting the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. By placing reliance on the judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No.855 of 2013 with connected matter in Suresh Ramlu Aulwar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra decided on 10.10.2013 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the learned advocate argued that torments caused to the deceased are required to be coupled with the intention of the accused for making out the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Reliance is placed on observations made in paragraph 18 of this judgment. By relying upon paragraph 15 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter in Criminal Writ Petition NO.2622 of 2012 Raviraj Ramchandra Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., decided on 18.6.2014 , it is argued that for making out offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, it is necessary to demonstrate that the accused has instigated or intentionally aided or had done any act as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC which results in commission of suicide by the deceased. Reliance is also placed on paragraphs 9 and 21 of the judgment of this Court dated 25.2.2015 in Criminal Revision Application No.417 of 2013 Mr. Wasim Hussain Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra to demonstrate that even if it is assumed that the deceased committed suicide on account of humiliation felt by him due to treatment given to him by accused persons that, by itself, would not render accused persons liable for having abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. Reliance is also placed on paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 26.4.2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.1113 of 2011 Shivraj Shitole & Others v. State and Another decided on 26.4.2012 wherein law in respect of offence of abetment is summarised in paragraph 19 of the said judgment. To demonstrate that establishing molestation punishable under the Bombay Money Lenders Act multiple act of money lending is required, reliance is placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge pronounced on 22.9.2015 in Writ Petition No.627 of 2015 Mandubai Vitthoba Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and others. To demonstrate that there must be reasonable certainty to incite consequences of commission of suicide by the deceased, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh, 2001(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 537 : (2001)9 SCC 618 . The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 687 : AIR 2002 SC 1998 is relied to buttress the contention that mensrea is necessary ingredient of the offence of abetment. The learned advocate for revision petitioners-accused also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 603 : 2010(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 106 : Criminal Appeal No.1301 of 2002. D/d. 5.1.2010. and 2017(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 118 : Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 2016, Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab decided on 2.12.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for contending that there should be live link or nexus between the abetment and commission of result thereof. With the aid of these reported rulings, it is argued by the learned advocate for revision petitioners-accused that the evidence collected by the investigator submitted in the form of chargesheet doesnot show any instigation or abetment by revision petitioners-accused to deceased Umesh Bomble in commission of suicide by him and, therefore, they are entitled for the discharge.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.