Rajeev Devaraj, B. Dileep Kumar, Lallu Sasidharan Pilllai, Chalil Narayanan Prakash v. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, and Saranyamol

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939** **Crl.MC.No. 5719 of 2017** **( CRIME NO. 1176/2017 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM)** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 4** ## **1 RAJEEV DEVARAJ,** **AGED 42, EDITOR, NEWS 18 KERALA, 'RITHU, ALATHARA, SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 017.** ## **2 B. DILEEP KUMAR,** **AGED 43, S/O. N. BHASKARA KURUP, SENIOR ASSOCIATE EDITOR, NEWS 18 KERALA, GEETHANJALI, PERUMAN P.O, KOLLAM - 691 601.** ## **3 LALLU SASIDHARAN PILLAI,** **AGED 36, S/O. G. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, SENIOR NEWS EDITOR, NEWS 18 KERALA, ANCHU KALLUMMOODU, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVUR P.O, KOLLAM.** ## **4 CHAALIL NARAYANAN PRAKASH,** **AGE 40, S/O. NARAYANAN KRISHNAN, SENIOR PRODUCER/ANCHOR, NEWS 18 KERALA, CHALIL HOUSE, THRIKKALATHOOR P.O,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM .** **BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,(ON BEHALF OF THE SI OF POLICE, TUMBA POLICE STATION, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO. 1176/2017)** **2. SARANYAMOL, LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, SHYAMALAS HOUSE, NEAR ATTIPRA GROUND, PUNDUKAVU, THUMPA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.PREETHA** **R. BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2018, THE COURT ON 20/2/2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 5719 of 2017 ()** **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1176/2017 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1193/2017 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, TECHNOPARK. KAZHAKKOOTTAM DATED 13/8/2017 AND THE STATEMENT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE.** # **SUNIL THOMAS, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **Crl.M.C.No.5719 of 2017** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20[th] day of February, 2018 ## **O R D E R** The accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.1176/2017 of Thumba Police Station for offences punishable under section 306 IPC read with section 34 IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, are the petitioners herein. 2. The second respondent herein is the defacto complainant. She was working as a panel producer in a T.V.News Channel by name “News 18 Kerala”. According to her, she joined the Hyderabad office in April 2016. Later, when Thiruvananthapuram office was opened, she joined there in July 2017. She alleged that when the first petitioner, who was the editor of the news Chanel, took charge of the institution, he started harassing the defacto complainant and others. According to her, there were several internal bickerings. The first petitioner gave her very low marks in her annual confidential report, alleging that she was incompetent and had bad performance. It is stated that, hence she was apprehensive that she was likely to be terminated on the basis of Crl.M.C. No.5719/2017 2 the low marks given by the first accused in his annual report. It was stated that remaining accused also aided him in harassing her. When one Bipas from Hyderabad office reached Thiruvananthapuram office, she contacted him and enquired about the rumour regarding her termination. She was informed that, she was in the list of persons likely to be terminated and requested her to voluntarily resign. She alleged that, on 10/8/2017 she got information from Bipas and thereafter she enquired with various authorities regarding the reason for her proposed termination. Nobody gave her the actual reason. She went home and consumed several paracetamol tablets in an attempt to commit suicide. Her friends who rushed to the spot took her to the hospital and was given medical aid. FIS was laid by her on 11/8/2011 against the petitioners herein alleging that accused harassed her and were responsible for her attempt to commit suicide. 3. The petitioners contending that, they have not committed any offence and that she was maintaining a wrong notion that the petitioners were attempting to harass her, have approached this Court. It was contended that, even according to the complainant, the information about the possibility of her termination, which suddenly prompted her to commit suicide, was given by Bipas and not by the first accused. There were no serious allegations against the remaining accused also. They sought to quash the proceedings. It was further contended that, offence under section 306 IPC will Crl.M.C. No.5719/2017 3 not survive, since the defacto complainant escaped from her attempt to commit suicide. 4. Learned Senior counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently contended that, an offence under section 306 IPC is not sustainable since the defacto complainant survived from her attempt to commit suicide. It was contended that, peculiar feature of section 306 is that, it becomes an offence only if it is successfully accomplished. This is clear from the wording of section 306 IPC . Section 306 IPC states that, “if any person commits suicide”, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine. It was further contended that, in a case of attempt to commit suicide, it may be an offence under section 309 IPC. But the accused will be the person, who attempted to commit offence. Hence, it was contended that, by no stretch of imagination offence under section 306 IPC can be attributed to the petitioners herein. To substantiate the above contentions, learned senior counsel relied on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in **Satvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.** ( **1998 Cr.L.J. 405).** It was a case wherein Haryana High Court held that when the defacto complainant did not succeed in her attempt to put an end to her life, then section 306 IPC will not be attracted. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in **Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001 KHC 934)** . The Supreme Crl.M.C. No.5719/2017 4 Court elaborately considered this concept and held that, section 306 IPC penalises abetment of suicide. It was held that, it is a unique legal phenomenon in the Indian Penal Code that the only act, the attempt of which alone will become an offence. The person who attempts to commit suicide is guilty of the offence under section 309 IPC, whereas the person who commits suicide cannot be reached at all. Section 306 IPC renders the person who abets the commission of suicide punishable for which the condition precedent is that suicide should necessarily have been commited. It is possible to abet the commission of suicide. But nobody would abet a mere attempt to commit suicide. It would be preposterous ,if law could afford to penalise an abetment to the offence of mere attempt to commit suicide. It was held that, crux of the offence under section 306 IPCitself is abetment. In other words, if there is no abetment there is no question of the offence under section 306 coming into play. It is inconceivable to have abetment of an abetment, it was held. 5. In **Shibu v. SI of Police(2003 KHC 1075),** a learned Single Judge of this Court held that section 306 of the IPC is not attracted when the person, who made an attempt to commit suicide, did not die. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor heavily relied on the decision of a single Judge of this Court in **Berin P.Varghese and Others v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KHC** Crl.M.C. No.5719/2017 5 **164)** , wherein the learned Single Judge took a different view and held that in case of unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide, one who abets the commission of an unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide, is liable to be punished under section 306 read with section 511 IPC. It was held that, even though section 306 opens with the words” if any person commits suicide”, it cannot be held that in a case of unsuccessful suicide, there is no attempt to abet the commission of suicide. The Hon'ble Judge, though referred to Satvir Singh's case (cited supra), disagreed with it on facts. 7. It is seen that the above decision seems to be not in tune with the decision of the Supreme Court in Satvir Singh's case. Infact, a reference regarding an attempt to commit suicide was also considered by the Supreme Court in Satvir Singh's case at paragraph 11. In case of suicide, when it is successfully accomplished, an offence under section 306 IPC may be attracted. When it is only an attempt, the offence is one under section 309, that too against the person who attempted to commit suicide. Hence, even an offence under sections 511 of 306 IPC is not liable to be charged against the accused herein . Hence, I am not inclined to accept the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant that even if section 306 IPC is not sustainable, an offence under sections 511 of section 306 IPC may survive. That contention is liable to be rejected. 8. After having found that the offence under section 306 Crl.M.C. No.5719/2017 6 cannot be attributed to the accused herein, the question that remain is whether they can be prosecuted under section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Offence under section 3 (2)(v) is attributed only if person commits scheduled offence. When offence under section 306 IPC is not found committed, an offence under section 3 (2) (v) of SC & ST POA) Act will not independently survive. Hence, prosecution under section 3(2)(v) independently is also not sustainable. 9. Having arrived at the above findings, I am satisfied that there is no scope for any further prosecution of the accused on the above offences. Even on facts, it appears that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners herein had abetted the victim or drove her to attempt to commit suicide. In the light of the above, I am inclined to hold that Crl.M.C is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, Crl.M.C.is allowed. All further proceedings in Crime No.1176/2017 of Thumba Police station stands quashed. **==> picture [25 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** ## **SUNIL THOMAS Judge** dpk /true copy/ PS to Judge. Crl.M.C. No.5719/2017 7