MILIND ANANTRAO PARADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                     34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


                      AGK
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO.1918 OF 2015
                      Milind Anantrao Parad                         … Petitioner
                                 V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra                      … Respondent
                                                    WITH
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.1919 OF 2015

ATUL                  Baby Shankar Jadhav                           … Petitioner
GANESH
KULKARNI                         V/s.
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
                      The State of Maharashtra                      … Respondent
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.04.10
13:05:51 +0530
                                                    WITH
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.1921 OF 2015
                      Shamrao Damu Sable                            … Petitioner
                                 V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra                      … Respondent
                                                    WITH
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.1922 OF 2015
                      Sitaram Raghunath Jadhav                      … Petitioner
                                 V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra                      … Respondent

                      Mr. Lakshyaved R. Odhekar with Mr. Omkar N. Mhasde
                      for the petitioner.
                      Mrs. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for the respondent-State.


                                                   CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                   DATED      : APRIL 8, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      The present writ petitions arise out of Sessions Case No.47 of
                      2012, wherein the petitioner in each of the petitions stands



                                                         1
                                               34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


arraigned as an accused for the offence punishable under Section
306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the
allegation that he, along with other accused, abetted the
commission of suicide of one Shivaji Bhaurao Gade, who was
serving as a teacher in the same Ashram School. By way of these
writ petitions, the petitioner seeks his discharge from the said
proceedings and consequential quashing thereof, contending that
there is no material on record which would justify the framing of
charge against him. In furtherance of such contention, the
petitioner had preferred an application under Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 8 May 2012. However, the
learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 1 January 2014, was
pleased to reject the said application.

2.    The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petitions, as
projected by the petitioner, is required to be noted. It is the case of
the prosecution that the petitioner, in concert with the co-accused,
entered into a conspiracy to falsely implicate the deceased Shivaji
Gade in relation to an incident dated 31 December 2010. It is
stated that accused No.1 Milind Parad and accused No.3 Shamrao
Damu Sabale were serving as teachers in the school. Accused
Sanjaykumar Kisanrao Shinde, who was also a teacher, came to be
discharged during the course of proceedings. Accused No.4
Babybai Shankar Jadhav was working as a cook in the Ashram
School, while accused No.5 Sitaram Raghunath Jadhav is stated to
be her brother. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the
intervening night of 31 December 2010 and 1 January 2011, at
about 2.30 a.m., the deceased had gone to the residence of



                                   2
                                             34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


accused No.4, who was employed as a cook in the Ashram School,
ostensibly for the purpose of drinking water. It is alleged that the
accused persons took undue advantage of the said incident and,
through accused No.4, caused a complaint to be lodged against the
deceased alleging that he had made a demand for illicit relations.
Pursuant to such complaint, a departmental inquiry was initiated
under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools Act. In the said inquiry, the deceased was held guilty of
misconduct and was visited with the punishment of stoppage of
increments. It is alleged that on account of the said departmental
action and the humiliation suffered thereby, the deceased
underwent severe mental distress, which ultimately led him to
commit suicide on 24 February 2011.

3.   The prosecution asserts that the act of lodging the complaint
and the consequential findings recorded in the departmental
inquiry amounted to abetment on the part of the accused, which
drove the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide.
On this basis, a First Information Report came to be lodged on 4
March 2011, that is, about ten days after the death of the
deceased, at the instance of his wife, alleging that the suicide was
the direct consequence of the humiliation suffered by the deceased
due to the departmental inquiry and the punishment imposed
upon him.

4.   Mr. Odhekar, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the judgment dated 10 December 2014 delivered
by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.825 of 2014, whereby
accused No.3 came to be discharged, arises out of the very same



                                 3
                                             34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


First Information Report, charge-sheet and incident, and is
therefore directly applicable to the present case. It is submitted
that this Court, in the said judgment, undertook a detailed scrutiny
of the entire prosecution case and recorded findings which are not
confined to the individual accused therein but extend to all
accused persons. It was observed that even the nature of death,
whether suicidal or accidental, was not free from doubt. It was
further held that even if the prosecution case is accepted in its
entirety, the essential ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code are not made out. This Court also found that the
complaint lodged by accused No.4 cannot be termed as false or
malicious, and that any alleged humiliation arising out of a
departmental inquiry and punishment would not, in law, amount
to abetment of suicide. Particular emphasis is placed on paragraph
21 of the said judgment, wherein this Court clearly held that such
circumstances would not render even the other accused liable for
prosecution under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the learned counsel, these findings strike at the root
of the prosecution case and operate against the very foundation of
the charge-sheet. It is submitted that the role attributed to the
present petitioner is identical to that of the accused already
discharged, namely participation in a lawful departmental process
without any act of instigation, intention, or proximate conduct
leading to suicide. Once this Court has already held, on the same
material, that prosecution under Section 306 is not sustainable,
continuation of proceedings against the present petitioner would
be impermissible in law. The said judgment is thus binding and




                                 4
                                                 34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


squarely applicable, entitling the petitioner to relief on the ground
of parity.

5.    Learned counsel further submitted that even upon a
complete and detailed analysis of the charge-sheet, and assuming
the prosecution case to be true in its entirety, no offence is made
out against the accused. It is contended that the material on record
clearly indicates that on 31 December 2010, after attending a New
Year gathering, the deceased himself went to the house of accused
No.4 at about 2.30 a.m., where he allegedly demanded illicit
relations. It is submitted that upon such conduct, accused No.4
became frightened and left the house, and thereafter a complaint
came to be lodged against the deceased. It is further pointed out
that the charge-sheet itself reflects that the deceased subsequently
admitted his misconduct and tendered an unconditional apology.
In such circumstances, it is submitted that there is no material to
suggest any false implication or fabrication, and the substratum of
the prosecution case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
stands completely undermined.

6.    It is further submitted that the charge-sheet contains
consistent   and    independent       material    demonstrating           the
misconduct of the deceased. The statement of Bhaurao Govinda
Ghongade indicates that on the night of 31 December 2010, the
deceased was present at his residence watching television till
about 12.30 a.m., after which he left. The said witness further
states that on 15 February 2011, the deceased apologised for his
conduct. This version is corroborated by several independent
witnesses, namely Kisan Bhimaji Pawar, Machhindra Ekanath



                                  5
                                                   34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


Kakad,   Yuvraj      Vitthal   Gabale,   Vitthal     Dhogade,         Ramdas
Hanumantha      Dhangade,       Bhagwanta    Dharkar         and      Ramesh
Bharmal, all of whom consistently state that the deceased admitted
his misconduct and tendered a public apology to accused No.4 by
touching her feet.

7.    Learned counsel further relied upon the report of the Tanta
Mukti Committee, which records that the deceased admitted his
mistake and assured that such conduct would not be repeated in
future. It is submitted that this document lends independent
corroboration to the oral testimonies of the witnesses and
establishes that the deceased accepted responsibility for his
actions. Further reliance is placed on the statement of Bhanudas
Langi, which assumes importance in demonstrating the voluntary
conduct of the deceased. The said witness states that after 1.00
a.m. on the night in question, the deceased approached him
stating that he was thirsty. When water was offered, the deceased
declined and instead enquired about the location of the staff
quarters. It is thereafter stated that at about 2.30 a.m., the
deceased proceeded towards the house of accused No.4. The
witness further states that no noise or commotion was heard from
the said house. It is thus submitted that the conduct of the
deceased clearly indicates that his visit was intentional.

8.    It is further submitted that even assuming, for the sake of
argument, that the death was suicidal, the settled legal position
requires the prosecution to establish clear instigation, requisite
mens rea and a proximate nexus between the conduct of the
accused and the suicide. It is submitted that mere harassment or



                                    6
                                                 34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


humiliation, even if arising from a lawful departmental inquiry,
would not constitute abetment in the absence of intention or
reasonable foreseeability. Reliance is again placed on the judgment
of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.825 of 2014 in support
of this proposition.

9.     In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prayed
that the charges framed on 28 November 2016 be quashed and
that the petitioner be discharged from Sessions Case No.47 of
2012

10.    Per contra, the learned APP invited attention to the
statements of witnesses to contend that several witnesses have
stated that false imputations were made against the deceased by
accused No.4 despite there being no fault on his part, and that on
the basis of such allegations, the accused persons, including office
bearers and employees of the school, initiated action against him.
It is submitted that the deceased was a teacher with a good
academic record, and though the matter was initially resolved
before the Tanta Mukti Committee, one of the accused pursued the
issue further. It is further submitted that despite the deceased
tendering an apology by touching the feet of accused No.4, the
proceedings were continued against him. According to the
prosecution, the acts of the accused caused mental trauma to the
deceased which ultimately led him to commit suicide. It is
therefore submitted that the prosecution              be afforded an
opportunity to lead evidence and establish its case. On this basis,
dismissal of the writ petitions is prayed for.




                                   7
                                             34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


REASONS AND ANALYSIS:

11.   The prosecution wants this Court to accept that the
complaint made against the deceased was not genuine but was a
planned act, almost like a trap created by the accused persons.
This submission does raise a serious allegation. However when the
Court looks into the actual material placed in the charge-sheet,
such a conclusion does not come out clearly. The record does not
show in a direct manner that the complaint was false or fabricated.
On the contrary, the statements collected during investigation
show certain consistent facts. It appears from those statements that
the deceased had gone to the house of accused No.4 during late
night hours. Some witnesses clearly say that he went there on his
own. There is no material to show that he was taken there or
forced to go. Further there are statements which say that after the
incident, the deceased apologised. Some witnesses even state that
he touched the feet of accused No.4, which indicates acceptance of
some mistake. The report of the Tanta Mukti Committee also
records that the deceased admitted his conduct and assured that it
would not be repeated. All this material, when read together,
shows that there was some incident which caused embarrassment
or social discomfort to the deceased. But the law makes a clear
distinction. Mere embarrassment or shame cannot be treated as
abetment of suicide. There must be something more serious. There
must be a clear act or conduct which directly pushes a person to
take such extreme step. That necessary connection is not seen
here. The material stops at showing an incident and its
consequences. It does not go further to show legal abetment.



                                 8
                                              34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


12.   The statement of Bhanudas Langi assumes importance
because it throws light on the conduct of the deceased before the
incident. According to this witness, the deceased had approached
him late in the night saying that he was thirsty. The witness was
willing to give water, but the deceased refused that help and
instead asked about the location of staff quarters. This part is
important. It shows that the deceased was making a conscious
choice. He did not simply act out of immediate necessity like thirst.
He refused water and chose to go elsewhere. Thereafter, as stated,
he went towards the house of accused No.4. This conduct appears
deliberate. The statement of Hari Popat Pawar also adds one more
piece to this situation. He states that accused No.4 came to Buddha
Vihar in a frightened condition soon after the incident. This
suggests that something unexpected had happened from her point
of view. These statements do not support the theory that the
accused persons had planned to falsely implicate the deceased.
Rather, they suggest that an incident took place and the complaint
followed that incident. Whether the conduct of the deceased was
right or wrong is not the issue before this Court. The limited
question is whether the accused persons can be said to have
abetted the suicide. For that, there must be instigation or
intentional assistance. The present material does not show any
such act.

13.   Another serious aspect of the prosecution case relates to the
alleged suicide notes. These notes are relied upon to connect the
accused with the death. But their evidentiary value itself is
doubtful. It is not shown that these notes were found at the place



                                  9
                                             34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


where the deceased died. They were not recovered immediately. It
is stated that they were found after four days from a bag. This
delay itself creates a doubt about their authenticity. There is also
no strong and reliable recovery record prepared at the time of such
discovery. In criminal cases, such procedural aspects carry weight.
Further there is no handwriting expert opinion placed on record to
confirm that the notes were actually written by the deceased.
Even otherwise when the contents of the notes are seen, they do
not clearly mention any direct act by the present petitioner which
can be said to have immediately led to the suicide. Criminal law
requires proof, not suspicion. A doubtful document, recovered in a
doubtful manner, without proper verification, cannot be used to
proceed against an accused for a serious offence like abetment of
suicide. The threshold for framing charge cannot be crossed on
such weak material.

14.   The prosecution has also relied upon the statement of Yuvraj
Vitthal Gabale. According to this witness, on the morning of the
incident, the deceased made a phone call stating that he intended
to come to school. This fact creates a peculiar situation. A person
who is about to take his own life would not normally speak in such
a routine manner about attending school. This creates doubt about
the prosecution theory. The petitioner has rightly pointed out this
inconsistency. The prosecution, however, has not offered any
convincing explanation to remove this doubt. The statement of
Meena Dadabhai Arote also does not support the prosecution
firmly. She clearly says that she cannot state whether the death
was suicidal. This is not a statement of certainty. Similarly, the



                                 10
                                               34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


statement of Nivrutti Maruti Aabale only indicates that the
deceased appeared somewhat quiet in the days before the incident.
Such behaviour can have many reasons. It cannot automatically
lead to the conclusion that he was driven to suicide by the
accused. These pieces of evidence are weak in nature. They do not
build a clear and strong chain pointing towards abetment.

15.   The learned APP has argued with some force that the
deceased was a teacher with a good background and reputation,
and that the accused persons unnecessarily continued the
proceedings against him even after he apologised. It is also argued
that this caused mental pressure and trauma. This submission does
have some emotional appeal. However, criminal law cannot
proceed only on such considerations. Even if it is accepted that the
deceased felt humiliated, the law still requires proof of intention
on the part of the accused to drive him to suicide, or at least
conduct which is so direct and proximate that such consequence
becomes a natural result. A departmental inquiry, even if strict or
unpleasant, is still part of a lawful process. It cannot automatically
be treated as abetment. Courts have consistently held that there
must be a clear and active role of instigation. There must be
something more than continuation of proceedings. That element is
missing here.

16.   Looking at the entire material together, this Court finds that
the case of the prosecution does not cross the basic legal
requirement for framing a charge under Section 306. The material
mainly speaks about an incident involving the deceased, the
complaint made thereafter, the departmental action, and the



                                 11
                                              34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


apology given by the deceased. These facts may show that the
deceased was in some difficulty or distress. But they do not show
that the accused persons created a situation with intention to push
him to suicide. There is no direct or proximate act attributed to the
present petitioner. The allegations are general. They rely more on
assumption than on concrete facts. Criminal prosecution cannot be
allowed to continue on such uncertain foundation. At the stage of
considering discharge, the Court has to see whether there is
sufficient ground to proceed. In this case, such ground is not made
out.

17.    There is also one more aspect which cannot be overlooked.
This Court has already granted relief to a co-accused on the same
set of facts and evidence. The principle of parity requires that
similarly placed accused persons should be treated alike. If there is
no distinguishing material against the present petitioner, then it
would not be proper to continue proceedings against him alone.
The prosecution has not pointed out any special role or separate
act of the present petitioner which would justify a different view.
In absence of such distinction, consistency in judicial approach
becomes necessary. Therefore, on this ground also, continuation of
prosecution against the petitioner cannot be sustained.

18.           In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons
recorded hereinabove, the following order is passed:

       (i)    The writ petitions succeed;

       (ii)   The impugned order dated 1 January 2014 passed by
       the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the applications under



                                   12
                                      34-wp1918-2015 & connected.doc


Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
quashed and set aside;

(iii) The applications preferred by the petitioner under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stand
allowed;

(iv) All petitioners are discharged from Sessions Case No.47
of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code;

(v)   Consequently, the proceedings in Sessions Case No.47
of 2012, insofar as they relate to the present petitioners,
stand quashed and set aside;

(vi) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order
as to costs.


                                     (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                          13