'Deceased Was Frustrated Due To Work Pressure' : Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Case Against Man Over Suicide Of His Junior
The Supreme Court recently quashed a 22-year-old criminal case against a person for allegedly abetting the suicide of a Scheduled Caste person who was working as his junior.The accused-appellant herein was working as the District Savings Officer in Kannauj District. It was alleged that the deceased, junior to the accused, killed himself in suicide on 3rd October 2002. The deceased left a...
The Supreme Court recently quashed a 22-year-old criminal case against a person for allegedly abetting the suicide of a Scheduled Caste person who was working as his junior.
The accused-appellant herein was working as the District Savings Officer in Kannauj District. It was alleged that the deceased, junior to the accused, killed himself in suicide on 3rd October 2002. The deceased left 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.
As per Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act, if anyone commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, such person shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;
The prosecution contended that the deceased was undergoing harassment and humiliation by the appellant because he was a member of the SC & ST community.
Against the refusal of the High Court to quash the pending criminal case, the appellant/accused preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.
At the outset, after perusing the contents of the suicide note, the Supreme Court found that the deceased was frustrated on account of work pressure and was apprehensive of various random factors unconnected to his official duties assigned by the accused/appellant, thus held that no offence of abetment to suicide is made out to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the accused/appellant because they had no role in abetting the suicide of the deceased.
"We have minutely perused the suicide note (reproduced supra) 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 court said.
No Case Is Made Out Under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act If Offence Under IPC Is Missing
Further, the Supreme Court observed that no case under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act could be allowed to continue if the offence under IPC is not committed by the accused.
“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 based on his caste.”, the Supreme Court observed while referring to Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra.
In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act survives against the accused if no offence under the Indian Penal Code having a punishment for a term of ten years or more is committed by the accused against a victim.
Answering negatively, the Supreme Court in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman held as follows
“To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises.”
Conclusion
“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 chargesheet 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 tantamounts to gross abuse of process to law.”, the court observed while allowing the accused appeal.
Accordingly, the pending criminal case for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against the accused/appellant was quashed and set aside.
Counsel For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Mr. Ajeet Pandey, Adv. Dr. Lokendra Malik, Adv.
Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Ram Shiromani Yadav, Adv.
Case Title: PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRA VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 009591 - / 2022
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 201