Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Jairam Atumal Aswani, was accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.60 of 2013 arising from the suicide of Ghanshyam Amarsingh Bajaj. The deceased committed suicide by hanging in his printing press, leaving a suicide note that named several creditors, including accused No.1 Anil Rajpal, and indicated that the applicant had introduced the deceased to other creditors. The applicant filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, on 7th July 2014. The applicant then filed the present criminal revision application challenging that order. The High Court examined the contents of the suicide note and the allegations against the applicant. The court noted that the suicide note specifically mentioned that the deceased had borrowed money from various persons through the intervention of the applicant, and that the deceased was harassed by the creditors. The court held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists, and not to weigh the evidence. The suicide note, if believed, could lead to a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the court found no illegality or impropriety in the Sessions Judge's order rejecting the discharge application. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Section 227 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The court must consider whether the material on record, if unrebutted, could lead to conviction; a roving inquiry is not permissible at the stage of framing of charge. (Paras 5-10)
B) Indian Penal Code - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Suicide Note as Evidence - A suicide note naming the accused and alleging harassment for repayment of loans can constitute prima facie evidence of abetment, warranting trial. (Paras 11-15)
C) Criminal Procedure Code - Framing of Charge - Section 228 CrPC - Standard of Proof - The test for framing charge is whether a prima facie case exists; the court need not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, accused No.3, is entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the contents of a suicide note.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the discharge application. The court found that a prima facie case under Section 306 IPC was made out against the applicant, and the trial must proceed.
Law Points
- Abetment of suicide
- prima facie case
- discharge
- suicide note as evidence
- Section 306 IPC
- Section 227 CrPC
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (11) 31
Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 2016
Mr. Tariq Khan for applicant, Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for respondent-State
The State Of Maharashtra (through Chembur Police Station)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application challenging rejection of discharge application in a case of abetment of suicide.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to quash the order dated 7th July 2014 rejecting his discharge application and to be discharged from the case.
Filing Reason
The applicant was accused No.3 in a case under Section 306 IPC based on a suicide note that allegedly implicated him in abetting the deceased's suicide by introducing him to creditors who harassed him.
Previous Decisions
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, rejected the discharge application (Exh.5) in Sessions Case No.60 of 2013 on 7th July 2014.
Issues
Whether the suicide note and other material on record make out a prima facie case against the applicant for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Whether the learned Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the discharge application under Section 227 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the suicide note does not attribute any specific act of abetment to him; he merely introduced the deceased to other creditors, which is not an offence.
The respondent-State contended that the suicide note clearly indicates the applicant's role in facilitating loans and the subsequent harassment, which constitutes abetment.
Ratio Decidendi
At the stage of framing of charge under Section 227 CrPC, the court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists; the suicide note, if believed, can lead to conviction for abetment of suicide, and therefore discharge is not warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
This application calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 7th July 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, on an application for discharge (Exh.5) in Sessions Case No.60 of 2013, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge was persuaded to reject the application filed by the applicant-original accused No.3.
The suicide note, inter-alia, revealed that the deceased had borrowed money from various persons, including one Mr.Anil Rajpal-accused No.1. The said Anil Rajpal was demanding huge amount towards interest and harassed the deceased.
Procedural History
The applicant (accused No.3) filed a discharge application (Exh.5) in Sessions Case No.60 of 2013 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, which was rejected on 7th July 2014. The applicant then filed Criminal Revision Application No.16 of 2016 in the Bombay High Court challenging that order. The revision was heard and dismissed on 13th November 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 227, 228
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 306
