THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusJYOTI NARAYAN PARIHAR

2026:BHC-AUG:39587


                                                    {1}                   ALS-91-2026


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 91 OF 2026

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through : Karjat Police Station,
                 Tq.Karjat, District Ahmednagar.              ….Applicant
                              Versus
                 Jyoti Narayan Parihar
                 Age: 35 years, Occu.: Service,
                 R/o. : At Sobapuram, Flat No.116,
                 Building No.5, Bombay-Benguluru Highway,
                 Warje-Pune-58, District Pune.           …..Respondent
                                                         (Ori. Accused)
                                                   …..
                 Mr.V.V.Jahagirdar, APP for Applicant.
                 Ms.Monica Nitin Bagwe h/f. Mr.Chandrashekhar P. Sengaonkar,
                 Advocate for Respondent.
                                                  …..
                                         CORAM :     ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                         RESERVED ON  : 31 AUGUST, 2026
                                         PRONOUNCED ON : 01 SEPTEMBER, 2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.      Dissatisfied by Judgment and order dated 03-02-2022 passed

                 by     learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Shrigonda,     District

                 Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.220 of 2019, acquitting present

                 respondent from charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code

                 (IPC), State intends to file appeal and therefore, present leave to file

                 appeal has been pressed into service.
                                 {2}                    ALS-91-2026


2.    Learned APP would submit that, accused was working as Block

Education Officer (BEO) whereas deceased was working as Primary

Teacher in Zilla Parishad Primary School at Wagholi. That, accused

had called deceased for initiating action for illegally running School

by Shri Rege at Dagadkhan Vasti and also to lodge report at Lonikand

Police Station. That, accused had also issued notice of misconduct

against deceased and there was continuous harassment to deceased

by accused due to which deceased was under pressure and

depression.   That, on 24-04-2017, deceased Jeevan Ramchandra

Waghmare consumed poison and committed suicide.             That, said

suicide was only because of harassment by accused. That, There was

no other reason for committing suicide. That, there was suicide note

but the same has not been correctly appreciated.         According to

learned APP, the said suicide note was authored by deceased and it

was also duly identified by complainant as well as wife of deceased,

therefore, there was no need for referring said suicide note to

handwriting expert.      However, only for want of opinion of

handwriting expert, said suicide note was kept out of purview of

consideration and the judgment is also perverse on many other

counts and as State has a good case in appeal, he urges for leave.
                                  {3}                    ALS-91-2026


3.    Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that

prosecution has miserably failed to connect accused to said suicide

of deceased. That, there was no cogent, reliable evidence about any

harassment. That, as acts of accused were in discharge of official

duty, there was no mens rea or ill intention, moreover notice was

issued by Chief-Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune, and not by

accused. That, moreover prosecution has failed to secure permission

to prosecute as required under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure

Code (the Cr.P.C.). Moreover, as abetment to commit suicide is not

proved, according to her, learned trial Court committed no error in

refusing the case of prosecution. Resultantly, she justifies order of

acquittal and prays to reject application for want of merits.




4.    After hearing above submissions and on going through the

papers, it seems that there is no dispute that accused was working as

BEO and deceased was serving as Primary Teacher in Zilla Parishad

Primary School at Wagholi. It seems that, accused in the capacity of

BEO, noticed that the school of Shri Reghe being run illegally at

Dagadkhan Vasti and some teachers were summoned.                Deceased

Jeevan had not accompanied them and therefore, there was dispute

between Shri Rege, accused as well as teachers of the School at
                                {4}                    ALS-91-2026


Wagholi and    it is further alleged    that, accused had called all

teachers to Lonikand Police Station to lodge report against Shri Rege

on 09-01-2017. According to prosecution, accused was pressuring

deceased Jeevan also to go to Police Station to lodge report and he

had pressurized as well as threatened to send adverse report for his

suspension.



5.    According to prosecution, deceased was under pressure and

depression due to said threats and on 24-04-2017, he allegedly

consumed poison. Deceased Jeevan was examined by PW9 Dr.Yadav,

who conducted autopsy and opined death due to asphyxia due to

unknown poisoning.



6.    Apparently,   alleged   dispute   was   of   09-01-2017        and

furthermore alleged suicide by consumption of poison is of

24-04-2017 i.e. almost three and half months after quarrel and

dispute. There is no material of any occurrence involving accused in

any incidence in proximity to 24-04-2017 so as to attribute any

harassment to him.    No positive role is attributed to respondent.

Precisely, the essentials like inducement, abetment to commit suicide

are patently missing from prosecution evidence.
                                 {5}                   ALS-91-2026


      Further, as submitted, learned trial Court in paragraph 37 has

noted that, even when accused was BEO and in employment of the

Government, no prior sanction has been obtained to prosecute as

required under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, when essential

requirements like abetment, inducement, instigation are missing in

the evidence of prosecution, charge of Section 306 of the IPC cannot

be allowed to be sustained and therefore, learned trial Court

committed no error in acquitting the accused.

      No case or point is made out on merits so as to accord leave.

With such quality of evidence on record, no fruitful purpose would be

served by according leave. Hence, leave is refused. Accordingly,

following order is passed :

                               ORDER

                   The application stands rejected.



                                       ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                              JUDGE
SPT