Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Kudtarkar, was originally accused no. 6 in Session Case No. 13 of 2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, Goa. The case arose from the death of Pranay Padloskar, whose body was found floating in a river on 08.03.2014. Pranay was in a relationship with Ankita Kudtarkar, the petitioner's cousin sister's daughter, for about seven years prior to his death. There were disputes between the families over this relationship, which were allegedly patched up at Valpoi Police Station after complaints and counter-complaints. On 06.03.2014, Pranay attended his classes at ITI Bicholim but did not return home; he was reported missing on 07.03.2014. His body was discovered the next day. The father of the deceased lodged an FIR against all male members of Ankita's family, including the petitioner, alleging that they caused Pranay's death and disposed of his body in the river to destroy evidence. The FIR was registered under Sections 323, 324, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 09.02.2016, directed framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and alternatively under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner challenged this order by way of criminal revision. The High Court examined the material on record, including the suicide note left by the deceased, which did not name the petitioner. The court noted that the only allegations against the petitioner were that he disapproved of the relationship and participated in a compromise at the police station. There was no evidence of any instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the petitioner on the date of the incident. The court held that mere disapproval or prior disputes do not constitute abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. Regarding the alternative charge of murder, the court found no evidence of common intention to cause death. The discovery of the body in the river and the allegation of disposal of evidence did not establish that the petitioner shared the intention to murder. The court concluded that the material did not raise a strong suspicion against the petitioner and that the impugned order was based on conjectures. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed to the extent of the petitioner. The court directed that the petitioner be discharged from the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment to Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Requirement of Instigation - The court examined whether the petitioner's conduct of disapproving the relationship between the deceased and his cousin sister and participating in a compromise at the police station amounted to abetment to suicide. Held that mere disapproval or prior disputes do not constitute instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid necessary for abetment under Section 306 IPC. The deceased's suicide note did not name the petitioner, and there was no evidence of any act of instigation on the date of death. (Paras 8-12) B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - The court considered whether the petitioner shared common intention with co-accused to cause the death of the deceased. Held that the only evidence against the petitioner was his presence at the police station compromise and his relationship with the deceased's girlfriend. The discovery of the dead body in the river and the allegation of disposal of evidence did not establish common intention to murder. The alternative charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was not sustainable. (Paras 13-15) C) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charge - Prima Facie Case - The court reiterated the settled principle that at the stage of framing charge, the court must consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. Held that the material on record did not raise a strong suspicion of the petitioner's involvement in the offences alleged. The impugned order was based on conjectures and surmises, and the charges were liable to be quashed. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in directing framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and alternatively under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on the material available on record.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, in Session Case No. 13 of 2015, is quashed and set aside to the extent of the petitioner. The petitioner is discharged from the case.
Law Points
- Abetment to suicide requires direct or indirect instigation
- conspiracy
- or intentional aid
- mere disapproval of relationship insufficient
- Murder requires common intention to cause death
- not established by subsequent disposal of body
- Prima facie case for framing charge must be based on reasonable grounds
- not suspicion
