Brief Facts
- The Accused-appellant, serving as the District Savings Officer in Kannauj District, was implicated in a case involving the suicide of a junior colleague on 3rd October 2002. The deceased left behind a suicide note.
- The case came to be registered with the police under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
- The Appellant/Accused approached the High Court by filing a Petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing of the charge-sheet and proceedings. However, the same was rejected by the High Court.
- Aggrieved by the aforementioned order of rejection of application, the Appellant/Accused moved to the Apex Court.
Issues
- Whether a case can be made out under section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act when there is no evidence that the offence under IPC was committed upon the deceased on the basis of his caste other than the suicide note?
- Whether the Appellant was prima facie liable for commission of offence under section 306 IPC on considering the suicide note of the deceased?
Held
- The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the High Court and all the proceedings sought against the Appellant were quashed and set aside. The findings of the Court are as under:
No offence under SC/ST Act
- At the outset, we may take note of the fact that the prosecution of the appellant herein for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is ex facie illegal and unwarranted because it is nowhere the case of the prosecution in the entire charge-sheet that the offence under IPC was committed by the appellant upon the deceased on the basis of his caste.
- From the admitted allegations of the prosecution, the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not made out so as to justify prosecution of the accused appellant for the said offence.
No case of abetment to suicide
- We have minutely perused the suicide note which clearly shows that the deceased was frustrated on account of work pressure and was apprehensive of various random factors unconnected to his official duties. He was also feeling the pressure of working in two different districts. However, such apprehensions expressed in the suicide note, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered sufficient to attribute to the appellant, an act or omission constituting the elements of abetment to commit suicide. The facts of the case at hand are almost identical to the case of Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. (2005) 2 SCC 659. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the necessary ingredients of the offence of abetment to commit suicide are not made out from the charge-sheet and hence allowing prosecution of the appellant is grossly illegal for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act tantamount to gross abuse of process to law.
Relevant Para No.
- 16, 18, 20, 22 and 23