1. The Applicants have challenged the order dated 6th October 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No.130 of 2016, whereby the Application preferred by the Applicants seeking discharge came to be rejected.
2. The charge-sheet has been filed against the Applicants for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that one Mr. Subhash Waghmare was working as a temporary worker in the Health Department of the Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation. He had associated himself with Applicant No.1, who is the President of the Maharashtra State Workers' Union, and had formed a union with the object of securing permanent employment for all temporary workers. Applicant No.1 was the leader of the Maharashtra State Workers' Union. He assured the temporary workers that, after the formation and registration of their union, arrangements would be made to regularize their services and make them permanent employees. Accordingly, the deceased, Subhash Waghmare, along with other temporary workers, formed a union and got it registered in the name of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Karmachari Sanghatna. In the said union, the Applicants were holding the posts of Union Leader, President and Vice-President, whereas the deceased, Subhash Waghmare, was its Secretary. On the instructions of Shrishail Gaikwad, funds at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per worker were collected for the Union, and an amount of approximately Rs.20 lakh was deposited in the bank account of Shrishail Gaikwad, i.e. Applicant No.1. Thereafter, also on the instructions of Applicant No.1, an amount of Rs.10,000/- from each worker was collected and the said amount was deposited in the Union's account maintained with Syndicate Bank, Sangli.
4. It is alleged by the complainant that, from time to time, Applicant No.1 obtained the signatures of the deceased, Subhash, and other office bearers on cheques and withdrew the amounts thereunder. After the lapse of about two and a half years, as there was no progress in the matter, the workers started making inquiries with the deceased, Subhash. When the deceased realized that the Applicants were allegedly cheating the workers, he demanded the return of the money from Applicant No.1. A part of the amount collected from some of the workers was thereafter refunded. However, Applicant No.1 stated that he would file a case in the Court and, in the meantime, asked the deceased, Subhash, to manage the workers, which was opposed by the deceased. Thereupon, the Union Leader and other office bearers of the Union asked the deceased, Subhash, to resign from the Union.
5. The deceased, Subhash, remained under pressure. Thereafter, he again approached the Applicants seeking a refund of the money. The Applicants asked him to bring the relevant register. Accordingly, the deceased brought the register, which was taken by the Applicants, and he was allegedly humiliated. Thereafter, the deceased made phone calls to Applicant No.1; however, Applicant No.1 avoided his calls and, whenever he attended them, he used to state that the account had been sealed and that no demand for money should be made.
6. The complainant, who is the wife of the deceased, has alleged that the Applicants harassed the deceased, Subhash, and abetted him to commit suicide.
7. The learned counsel for the Applicants has stated that the FIR came to be registered six days after the death of the deceased. The wife of the deceased has produced pages of a register in which the names of the Applicants are mentioned. According to the complainant, due to the pressure exerted by and the conduct of the Applicants, the deceased committed suicide. It is alleged that, prior to committing suicide, the deceased had made entries in the said register, and therefore, the Applicants are responsible for his death. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the crime came to be registered.
8. The learned counsel for the Applicants has stated that there is no nexus between the incident of suicide and the contents of the pages of the register. Though the said writing is referred to as a last letter addressed to the employees and contains allegations regarding the misappropriation committed by the Applicants, there is nothing therein to indicate that the deceased committed suicide because of the Applicants or their conduct.
9. The learned APP opposed the Application, submitting that there is a suicide note and that the handwriting expert's report indicates that the same was written by the deceased. It is further submitted that specific allegations have been made against the Applicants and that they had harassed the deceased and misused the amounts collected from poor employees, on account of which he committed suicide. Considering the statements of the witnesses and the documents placed on record, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the Application. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the Application.
10. On perusal of the record, it appears that the deceased, who was the Secretary of the said Union, was frustrated as he was unable to secure justice for the employees. Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 were the office bearers of the Union, Applicant No.1 being its President, while the other Applicants were also office bearers. The deceased was serving as the Secretary of the said Union.
11. The alleged suicide note indicates that the deceased had communicated details regarding the contributions made by the employees and the expenses incurred by the Union. According to the deceased, the Applicants had misappropriated the amounts contributed by the employees. Though he has stated in writing that the Applicants had misappropriated the said amount, a reading of the said letter, communication or writing does not reveal any allegation that he committed suicide on account of such misappropriation. There is also no specific allegation therein that the Applicants had abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
12. In the case of Prakash Vs. State of Maharashtra(2025 SCC Online SC 1725), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“14. Section 306 read with Section 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-established. "14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or Incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating Intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide."
13. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether the intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.
14. I am unable to find that the suicide was the direct result of the acts alleged against the Applicants. I have gone through the papers produced on record, including the alleged suicide note, the complaints made, the statements recorded, and the other material collected during the course of investigation, as well as the subsequent conduct of the police regarding the delay in registering the crime. The material placed on record does not support the contention that the allegations levelled against the Applicants were the direct cause of the death of the deceased.
15. In the aforesaid circumstances, a case is made out for discharging the Applicants from the said offence. Hence, the Application is allowed.
