This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24th April, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 28 of 2006 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which the writ petition against the order of dismissal of the petitioner’s application and successive appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been dismissed. In the said petition, the direction was sought by the petitioner to the Respondent No. 1 to provide information as asked by him vide his application dated 15th November, 2004 from Respondent No. 4 a Judicial Officer as for what reasons, the Respondent No. 4 had decided his Miscellaneous Appeal dishonestly. The facts and circumstances give rise to this case are, that the petitioner claimed to be in exclusive possession of the land in respect of which civil suit no. 810 of 2000 was filed before Additional Civil Judge, Ranga District praying for perpetual injunction By Dr. Rao against the petitioner and another, from entering into the suit land. Application filed for Interim relief in the said suit stood dismissed. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff therein preferred C.M.A. No. 180 of 2000 and the same was also dismissed. Two other suits were filed in respect of the same property impleading the Petitioner also as the defendant. In one of the suits i.e. O.S. No. 875 of 2003, the Trial Court granted temporary injunction against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred the C.M.A.no. 64 of 2003, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court-Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 10th August, 2004. Petitioner filed an application dated 15th November, 2004 under Section 6 of the R.T.I. Act before the Administrative Officer- cum-Assistant State Public Information Officer (respondent no. 1) seeking information to the queries mentioned therein. The said application was rejected vide order dated 23rd November, 2004 and an appeal against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 20th January, 2005. Second Appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Information Commissioner vide order. The petitioner challenged the said order before the High Court, seeking a direction to the Respondent no. 1 to furnish the required information Immediately. The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 306 I.P.C. on the allegations that his farm labour (deceased) committed suicide because of the harassment meted out to him by the appellant. The prosecution case was that the appellant, two days prior to the incident, leveled an allegation of theft of ornaments against the deceased; that the appellant had also demanded from the deceased Rs. 7000/- which was given to him as advance at the time when he was kept in employment. The conviction was affirmed by the High Court. In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was contended for the appellant that the conviction of the appellant was unsustainable as no ingredients of offence punishable u/s 306 I.P.C. were made out. Abetment involved a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person u/s 306 I.P.C. there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in day to day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. In the light of the provisions of law and the settled legal positions crystallized by a series of judgments in this Court, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. ‘Sui’ means ‘self’ and ‘cide’ means ‘killing, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English law or Indian Criminal law. (800 words)
