Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ashok Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:24803) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24803]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 768/2005
Ashok Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar, by caste Bishnoi, R/o Mandi,
Aadampur, Haryana
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/05/2025
Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section
397 /401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 22.07.2005 passed by
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, bhadra in Sessions
Case No. 41/2004 whereby, the learned Judge ordered to frame
charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 306 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that a written report was filed by
the complainant Ram Kumar on 01.06.2004 before the Police
station Bhirani stating therein that his nephew Krishan Kumar was
working as an Accountant at a cloth shop of Shiv Kumar Godara,
Adampur. On 30.05.2004, he went to the cloth shop on his
motorcycle but did not return. On 02.06.2024, another written
report was presented before the SHO, P.S. Bhirani alleging that on
29.05.2004 his nephew Krishan Kumar looked stressed out. Upon
inquiry, he told the complainant that owner's shop was running in
loss and the owners were pressing him to recover credit money
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (2 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
from the customers. He told that the owners had threatened him
that if he fails to recover the credit money, they will get it
recovered from his family members. On 30.05.2004, he went
missing, thereafter, on 01.06.2024, his dead body was recovered
from a canal near Dungarana village. It was alleged that the
owners Sandeep and Ashok had killed his nephew.
On this report, the police registered FIR for offence under
Section 306 IPC and started investigation. After due investigation,
the police filed chargesheet against the present petitioner for the
offence under Section 306 IPC. Thereafter, the case was
committed to the court of Sessions from where it was committed
for trial to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. The learned Additional and District
Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh ordered to frame
charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 306 IPC.
Hence, this present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that
no offence under Sections 306 IPC is made out against the
petitioner as there is no evidence pointing out complicity of the
petitioner in commission of said offence. It is argued that the
deceased Krishan Kumar was mentally frustrated and committed
suicide. There is no evidence that the accused petitioner had
threatened or abated commission of suicide. The ingredients of
Section 107 IPC i.e. intentionally aiding, by an act or omission is
clearly missing. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner
instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide and
therefore, the offence under Section 306 IPC is clearly not made
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (3 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
out. Therefore, the trial court has committed an error in framing
charge for offence under Sections 306 of IPC.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the
deceased in his suicide note has specifically named the present
petitioner that he harassed and threatened him, therefore, he is
committing suicide. Further it is settled proposition of law that at
the stage of framing of charge, the scope of powers conferred
under Section 397 Cr.P.C is very limited. Therefore, the trial court
has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under
Sections 306 IPC.
I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
From the perusal of FIR and documents on record, the
allegation against the present petitioner is that he harassed and
threatened the deceased Krishan Kumar, due to which he
committed suicide. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 306
IPC reads as under :--
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine."
For commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC,
abetment is the necessary thing, which has been defined in
Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC, reads as under:--
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a
thing, who- (First)- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (4 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
(Secondly)-Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(Thirdly)- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,
or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound
to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act"
When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is
clear that there must be: (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in
close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear
mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
The core element of Section 306 of IPC is the intentional
abetment of suicide. Thus, for framing a charge for the offence
under section 306 IPC, the learned court below is to consider
whether the abettor intentionally instigated or aided the
commission of the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or
strained relationships do not suffice to establish abetment. In case
of Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and
Another Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:
"8. Reading these sections together would indicate that
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (5 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or
intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'. When we apply these
three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused
must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or
engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the
person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act)
intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.
...
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence
recorded by the courts below and the legal position
established through statutory and judicial
pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no
proximate link between the marital dispute in the
marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission
of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any
evidence to substantiate the allegations against the
appellant. The appellant has not played any active role
or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the
deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of
the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the
deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during
investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the
appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no
allegation against the appellant of suggesting the
deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the
commission of suicide by her husband.”
A plethora of Apex Court decisions have crystallized the law
of abetment. Abetment involves the mental process of instigating
or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To
bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment
would require the positive act of instigation or intentionally aiding.
Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to
abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (6 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
position he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
In the present case, the recovered suicide note explicitly
exonerates the petitioner, indicating solely that he was the reason
behind the deceased’s decision to end his life. Crucially, the note
does not contain any direct allegations of harassment, threats, or
instigation by the petitioner with the intent to induce the deceased
to take such a drastic step. The absence of specific accusations or
evidence establishing any coercive or malicious conduct on the
part of the petitioner diminishes the likelihood of their culpability
in the deceased’s demise. Furthermore, the content of the note
suggests that the deceased may have been experiencing personal
or psychological distress independent of the petitioner’s actions.
In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner ought not be
charged under Section 306 of the IPC, as the prosecution has
failed to provide any evidence that the petitioner explicitly
provoked, goaded, or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
The actions attributed to the petitioner, such as instructions to do
his job, were aimed at intimidating the deceased, but there is no
material on record to suggest that these actions directly led to the
deceased taking his own life. Section 306 IPC requires clear
evidence of abetment, which involves active encouragement or
provocation to commit suicide. In the absence of such evidence,
the petitioner’s actions cannot be classified as abetment under the
law. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be charged under
Section 306 IPC. The alleged conduct does not fall within the
ambit of “incitement” or “instigation”. For an action to be
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (7 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
considered as abetment under Section 306, it must be such that it
compels the deceased to commit suicide. This compulsion must
arise from actions or behavior of the accused that leave the
deceased with no alternative but to take such a drastic step.
Allegations of threatening or intimidation, without clear evidence
of how these actions directly or immediately led to the suicide, are
insufficient. The courts have emphasized that the proximity of the
accused’s offending action to the suicide is crucial–such actions
must be recent or immediate enough to be seen as the direct
catalyst for the victim’s decision to end their life.
If there is no evidence showing that these acts directly
influenced the deceased’s state of mind to the extent of causing
suicide, then the accused cannot be held liable for abetment under
Section 306 IPC. Therefore, mere allegations without a proximate
causal connection between the actions of the accused and the
suicide would not suffice to establish a charge under this section.
The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long
settled was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab Reported in 1 (2004) 13
SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:
“12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating
a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a
thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that
mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing
of that thing. More active role which can be described as
instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required
before a person can be said to be abetting the
commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (8 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has
observed that the courts should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and
the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of
finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had
in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.
If it transpires to the court that a victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life quite common to
the society to which the victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and differences were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given
society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court
should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the
accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide
should be found guilty.”
Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.,
Reported in 2 (2007) 10 SCC 797, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as
follows in para 6:
“6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The
offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence
provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing
when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or
(2) engages with one or more other persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3)
intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing. These things are essential to complete
abetment as a crime. The word “instigate” literally
means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by
persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in
the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides
that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (9 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]abetment and there is no provision for the punishment
of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished
with the punishment provided for the original offence.
“Abetted” in Section 109 means the specific offence
abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of
which a person is charged with the abetment is normally
linked with the proved offence.”
In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West
Bengal Reported in 2009 7 Supreme 289, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that:-
“15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and
also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to
find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without their being any
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on
the part of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and
in the commission of the said offence, the person who
is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must
have played an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged
with the said offence must be proved and established
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (10 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]by the prosecution before he could be convicted under
Section 306 IPC.
17. The expression ‘abetment’ has been defined under
Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted
above. A person is said to abet the commission of
suicide when a person instigates any person to do that
thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as
stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC.
Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is
committed pursuant to and in consequence of
abetment then the offender is to be punished with the
punishment provided for the original offence.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State,
however, clearly stated before us that it would be a
case where clause thirdly’ of Section 107 IPC only
would be attracted. According to him, a case of
abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under
Section 107 IPC.”
The scope and ambit of Section 107 of IPC and its co-relation
with Section 306 of IPC has been discussed repeatedly by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of different High
Courts. In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
and another Reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed as under:-
“25. Abetment involves 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 under Section 306 IPC there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (11 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that
act must have been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed suicide.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno
and Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police Reported in AIR 2022 SC
4994 observed as under :-
“This Court has time and again reiterated that before
convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal
Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts
and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the
victim had left the victim with no other alternative but
to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind
that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement
to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation
of harassment without their being any positive action
proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the
Accused which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian
Penal Code is not sustainable.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in another case of Mohit Singhal
Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 3578/2023)
dated 01.12.2023 has observed as under :-
“9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in
Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question
is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to
commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be
instigation in some form on the part of the accused to
cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (12 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to
commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such
intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such
a position under which he or she has no choice but to
commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close
proximity to the act of committing suicide.”
In the case of Prakash and Others v. The State of
Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 INSC 1020 The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-
first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the
abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order
to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must
necessarily be proved that the accused person has
contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some
direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or
involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in
Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well
established. To attract the offence of abetment to
suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or
indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by
the accused, which must be in close proximity to the
commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation
or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the
commission of suicide and should put the victim in such
a position that he/she would have no other option but to
commit suicide.
…
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that
instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do “an act”. It has been held that in order(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (13 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]to satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to that effect
or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence, however,
a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the
facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.
…
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that
in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It has been held that since the
cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence
of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would
be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s)
of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court
further observed that a mere allegation of harassment
of the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there is such action on the part of the accused
which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court
also emphasised that such an offending action ought to
be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further
clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It
was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of
such nature where the accused intended nothing more
than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular
case may fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide, however, if the accused kept on irritating or
annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (14 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case
may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held that
owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected
and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions
are dealt with differently by different persons, each case
is required to be dealt with its own facts and
circumstances.
…
26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person
is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide.
However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in
order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the
two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other
so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide
by the deceased being a direct result of the act of
instigation by the accused person.
27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra)
reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such
intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to
push the deceased to such a position under which the
person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court
held that the incident which had allegedly driven the
deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior
and even the suicide note had been written three days
prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide
and further, there was no allegation that any act had been
done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity
to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
“11.In the present case, taking the complaint of the
third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as
correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants
instigated the deceased to commit suicide by
demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (15 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]third respondent from her husband by using abusive
language and by assaulting him by a belt for that
purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more
than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no
allegation that any act was done by the appellants in
close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of
imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can
amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased
has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble
due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence
punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out
against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of
their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the
process of law.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of
Haryana, observed as follows:-
“20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano
Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred
decisions rendered in context of culpability under
Section 306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45)“45. … It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission
of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to
the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which
led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not
sustainable.”
Recently, in the case Lamxi Das vs The State of West
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (16 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
Bengal & Ors. Reported in 2025 INSC 86 the Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed that:-
“14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant
along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure
on the deceased to end the relationship between her and
Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased’s family that was
unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant
expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu
Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of
direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a
remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she
cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain
the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act
that creates an environment where the deceased is
pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of
Section 306 IPC.”
In the case of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in AIR 2025 SC 568, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India addressed the issue of whether accused could be
charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly
abetting the suicide of the deceased. The court reasoned that the
evidence, including a suicide note and audio recordings, did not
demonstrate that accused had instigated or intended to instigate
the suicide, as required by law. The court emphasized the need for
a higher threshold of proof for such charges and criticized the
casual application of Section 306 by authorities. the relevant para
are:-
“18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the
requirement of instigation the Accused by his act or
omission or by a continued course of conduct should(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (17 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]have created such circumstances that the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was
also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and
emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be instigation.
………………
20. This Court has, over the last several decades,
repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by
law for Section 306 Indian Penal Code [Now Section 108
read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have
followed more in the breach. Section 306 Indian Penal
Code appears to be casually and too readily resorted to
by the police. While the persons involved in genuine
cases where the threshold is met should not be spared,
the provision should not be deployed against individuals,
only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught
family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed
Accused and the deceased, their interactions and
conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the
deceased should be approached from a practical point of
view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life.
Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without
anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit
suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are
sensitised to the law laid down by this Court Under
Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the
abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The
trial courts also should exercise great caution and
circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe
syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the
investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter
disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.”
Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial
pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24803] (18 of 18) [CRLR-768/2005]
trial Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the
chargesheet, are taken to be correct, there is not an iota of
evidence against the petitioner. There is no allegation against
the petitioner of a nature that the deceased was left with no
alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing
suicide. The prosecution must show that the accused had a
motive to abet the suicide. If there is no proof of any active role
played by the accused in the events leading up to the suicide
the Court may set aside the charge.
In the present case, even if the allegations as contained in
the FIR and statements of the witnesses are taken as it is, even
then it cannot be said that petitioner has instigated the deceased
to commit suicide.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby allowed. The
impugned o the order dated 22.07.2005 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra in Sessions Case No. 41/2004
whereby, the learned Judge ordered to frame charges against the
petitioner to the extent of offence under Section 306 IPC is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
13-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:56:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)