[ad_1]
Bombay High Court
Ku Karishma D/O Vijay Sharma vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, … on 8 July, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:6492
Judgment
425 revn207.24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.207 OF 2024
Ku.Karishma d/o Vijay Sharma,
aged about 28 years,
occupation education.
r/o Sunrise Guest House,
Ramdaspeth, Akola, taluka and district
Akola. ..... Applicant.
:: V E R S U S ::
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Pinjar,
taluka Barshitakli, district Akola. ..... Non-applicant.
Shri K.R.Giripunje, Counsel and Shri S.V.Sirpurkar,
Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri Anant Ghongre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Shri N.R.Tekade, Counsel for the Intervenor.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 02/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 08/07/2025
JUDGMENT
…..2/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
2
1. Heard learned counsel Shri K.R.Giripunje for the
applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Anant
Ghongre for the State, and learned counsel Shri
N.R.Tekade for the Intervenor. Rule. Heard finally by
consent.
2. The present revision application is filed by the
applicant, who is original accused, in connection with
Crime No.225/2019 registered under Section 306 of the
IPC with the non-applicant/police station, against
rejection of discharge application filed at Exh.13 under
Section 227 of the CrPC.
3. Factual matrix of the case is as under:
Amit Jaiprakash Sanwal (the deceased) committed
suicide by jumping into dam of Mahan, taluka Barshitakli,
district Akola on 23.9.2019 and, therefore, merg was
registered with the non-applicant/police station bearing
…..3/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
3
No.21/2019 and enquiry under Section 174 of the CrPC
was initiated. During the enquiry, it revealed that there
was extra-marital relationship between the deceased and
the applicant. The applicant was insisting him to perform
marriage though she was aware that the deceased is
married. It is further alleged that the applicant was
harassing the deceased by demanding money for
purchasing valuables. As the deceased was continuously
pressurized for money and performing marriage with her,
he committed suicide by jumping into the said dam. On
the basis of the said investigation, the crime was
registered against the applicant. After registration of the
crime, investigation was carried out and statements of
relevant witnesses were recorded. After completion of the
investigation, chargesheet was filed against the applicant.
The applicant preferred an application vide Exh.13 for
discharge on the ground that on the basis of vague
…..4/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
4
allegations, she is arraigned as an accused alleging that
she abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In fact, the
entire investigation papers nowhere make out case of
abetment contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC. As
no prima case is made out, no purpose will be served by
forcing the applicant to face charges.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated said
contentions and took me through the entire investigation
papers and submitted that the prosecution placed reliance
on statements of some witnesses which only disclose that
there was friendship between the applicant and the
deceased. At the most, it shows that there was extra-
marital relationship between both of them, but it nowhere
discloses that in what manner the applicant has abetted
the deceased to commit suicide. The witnesses do not
…..5/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
5
have personal knowledge about insistence by the
applicant for the marriage.
To attract Section 306 of the IPC, two basic
ingredients that an act of suicide by one person and
abetment by another person are to be established.
In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code, it must necessarily be proved that
the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the
deceased by some direct or indirect act. Abetment
involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally
aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a
charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the
act of abetment would require the positive act of
instigating or intentionally aiding another person to
commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the
accused person being apparent from the face of the
…..6/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
6
record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be
sustained.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State submitted that at the time of framing of charge,
a strong suspicion is also sufficient to frame charge.
Whether there was requisite mens rea or not is a matter of
evidence. The statements of witnesses, who are friends of
the deceased, disclosed involvement of the applicant in
the abetment. At the stage of framing of charge, the
court is required to evaluate the material and documents
on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of
ingredients or not. Thus, at this stage, the material
collected during investigation is sufficient to frame the
charge and, therefore, no interference is called for.
…..7/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
7
6. Before entering into merits of the case, it is
necessary to see what are considerations for considering
the application for discharge.
7. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge, the court must
proceed on the assumption that the material which has
been brought on record by the prosecution is true and
evaluate the material in order to determine whether the
facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value,
disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the
offence alleged.
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in
MANU/SC/1113 2023, adverting to the earlier
propositions of law in its earlier decisions in the cases of
State of Tamil Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan and ors, reported
…..8/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
8
in (2014) 11 SCC 709 and The State of Maharashtra vs.
Som Nath Thapa, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 and The
State of MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, reported in (2000) 6 SCC
338, has held as under:
“10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge the court
must proceed on an assumption that the material
which has been brought on record by the
prosecution is true and evaluate said material in
order to determine whether the facts emerging
from the material taken on its face value, disclose
the existence of the ingredients necessary of the
offence alleged. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu
vs. N.Suresh Rajan and ors, (2014) 11 SCC 709
adverting to the earlier propositions of law laid
down on this subject has held:
“29. We have bestowed our consideration to
the rival submissions and the submissions
made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True…..9/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
9
it is that at the time of consideration of the
applications for discharge, the court cannot
act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act
as a post office and may sift evidence in order
to find out whether or not the allegations
made are groundless so as to pass an order of
discharge. It is trite that at the stage of
consideration of an application for discharge,
the court has to proceed with an assumption
that the materials brought on record by the
prosecution are true and evaluate the said
materials and documents with a view to find
out whether the facts emerging therefrom
taken at their face value disclose the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. At this stage, probative value of the
materials has to be gone into and the court is
not expected to go deep into the matter and
hold that the materials would not warrant a
conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been…..10/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
10
committed and not whether a ground for
convicting the accused has been made out. To
put it differently, if the court thinks that the
accused might have committed the offence on
the basis of the materials on record on its
probative value, it can frame the charge;
though for conviction, the court has to come
to the conclusion that the accused has
committed the offence. The law does not
permit a mini trial at this stage.”
9. Thus, the defence of the accused is not to be
looked into at this stage when the application is filed for
discharge. The expression “the record of the case” used in
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be
understood as the documents and materials, if any,
produced by the prosecution. The provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure does not give any right to the
accused to produce any document at the stage of framing
…..11/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
11
of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be
confined to the material produced by the investigating
agency. The primary consideration at the stage of framing
of charge is the test of existence of a prima facie case, and
at this stage, the probative value of materials on record
need not be gone into. At the stage of entertaining the
application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the court cannot analyze or direct
the evidence of the prosecution and defence or the points
or possible cross examination of the defence. The case of
the prosecution is to be accepted as it is.
10. In the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal and anr, reported in (1973)3 SCC 4, the Hon’ble
Apex Court considered the scope of Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. After adverting to the
…..12/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
12
various decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enumerated
the following principles:
“(1) That the Judge while considering the question
of framing the charges under section 227 of the
Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused which
has not been properly explained the Court will be,
fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding
with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would
naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it
is difficult to lay down a rule of universal
…..13/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
13
application. By and large however if two views are
equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the
evidence produced before him while giving rise to
some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the
accused, he will be fully within his right to
discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section
227 of the Code the Judge which under the present
Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act
merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the
prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the
Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case
and so on. This however does not mean that the
Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros
…..14/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
14
and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as
if he was conducting a trial.”
11. With above principles, if the material in the
present case collected during the investigation is
discussed, there is no dispute as to the fact that there was
extra-marital relationship between the deceased and the
applicant. The applicant was aware that the deceased is
married. It is alleged that the applicant was insisting the
deceased to perform the marriage.
For that purpose, the prosecution placed reliance
on statements of Majar Khan Bismillah Khan, Atish Vijay
Avchar, and Gourav Gopal Sharma, which state to the
extent that the deceased was introduced to them by the
applicant. It was the applicant who disclosed to them
that she is having love affair with the deceased and they
would perform marriage.
…..15/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
15
The statement of Majar Khan further shows that
the applicant was upset as the deceased did not pay
amount Rs.2.00 lacs and she was demanding the money
from the deceased from time to time.
The statement of another witnesses are on the
similar lines.
As far as allegation, as to the extra-marital
relationship is concerned, the entire prosecution case
rested upon statements of these witnesses.
12. Now, question remains, whether having extra-
marital relationship and demanding money or insisting
for marriage are sufficient to say that the applicant
abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
…..16/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
16
13. Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023) of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment
of suicide, which reads thus:
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.
Classification of offence. – The offence under this
section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-
compoundable and triable by Court of Session.
14. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 45
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment
of a thing, which reads thus:
107. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the
doing of a thing, who–
First.–Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.–Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing
…..17/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
17
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.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from
a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that
fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to
A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to
apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the
apprehension of C.
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.
…..18/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
18
15. Section 108 of the Indian Penal reads thus:
108. Abettor.–
A person abets an offence, who abets either the
commission of an offence, or the commission of an
act which would be an offence, if committed by a
person capable by law of committing an offence
with the same intention or knowledge as that of
the abettor.
Explanation 1.– The abetment of the illegal
omission of an act may amount to an offence
although the abettor may not himself be bound to
do that act.
Explanation 2.– To constitute the offence of
abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted
should be committed, or that the effect requisite to
constitute the offence should be caused.
Illustrations
…..19/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
19
(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so.
A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of
the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound.
A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.
Explanation 3.– It is not necessary that the person
abetted should be capable by law of committing an
offence, or that he should have the same guilty
intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or
any guilty intention or knowledge.
Illustrations
(a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a
lunatic to commit an act which would be an
offence, if committed by a person capable by law of
committing an offence, and having the same
intention as A. Here A, whether the act be
committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.
…..20/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
20
(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates
B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act
which causes Z’s death. B, in consequence of the
abetment, does the act in the absence of A and
thereby causes Z’s death. Here, though B was not
capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable
to be punished in the same manner as if B had
been capable by law of committing an offence, and
had committed murder, and he is therefore subject
to the punishment of death.
(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B,
in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind,
being incapable of knowing the nature of the act,
or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to
law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A’s
instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is
guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a
dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment,
provided for that offence.
…..21/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
21
(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed,
instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of
Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the
property belongs to A. B takes the property out of
Z’s possession, in good faith, believing it to be A’s
property. B, acting under this misconception, does
not take dishonestly, and therefore does not
commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and
is liable to the same punishment as if B had
committed theft.
Explanation 4.– The abetment of an offence being
an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is
also as offence.
Illustration
A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z.
accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and
commits that offence in consequence of B’s
instigation. B is liable to be punished for his
offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A
…..22/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
22
instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable
to the same punishment.
Explanation 5.– It is not necessary to the
commission of the offence of abetment by
conspiracy that the abettor should concert the
offence with the person who commits it. It is
sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in
pursuance of which the offence is committed.
Illustration
A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is
agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then
explains the plan to C mentioning that a third
person is to administer the poison, but without
mentioning A’s name. C agrees to procure the
poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the
purpose of its being used in the manner explained.
A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence.
Here, though A and C have not conspired together,
yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in
…..23/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
23
pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has
therefore committed the offence defined in this
section and is liable to the punishment for murder.
16. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code talks about
abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the
commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to
fine.
The said Sections penalizes abetment of
commission of suicide. To charge someone under this
Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused
played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused’s
actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed
in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. This means the
accused either encouraged the individual to take their life,
…..24/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
24
conspired with others to ensure the person committed
suicide.
17. A question arises as to when a person said to
have instigated another. The word “instigate” means to
goad or urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
“an act” which the person otherwise would not have
done.
18. It is well settled that in order to amount to
abetment, there must be mens rea. Without knowledge or
intention, there cannot be any abetment. The knowledge
and intention must relate to the act said to be abetted
which in this case, is the act of committing suicide.
Therefore, in order to constitute abetment, there must be
direct incitement to do culpable act.
19. In SLP (Cri.) Diary No.39981/2022 (Prabhu vs.
The State represented by the Inspector of Police and anr)
…..25/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
25
decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 30.1.2024, it is
held that the physical relationship over a considerable
period of time was out of mutual love between the
appellant and the deceased and not based on the promise
of marriage. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
considered its earlier decision in the case of Kamlakar vs.
State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1485/of 2011,
decided on 12.10.2023 and explained ingredients of
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and held, as under:
“8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of
commission of suicide. To charge someone under
this Section, the prosecution must prove that the
accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically,
the accused’s actions must align with one of the
three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC. This
means the accused either encouraged the
individual to take their life, conspired with others
to ensure the person committed suicide, or acted in…..26/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
26
a way (or failed to act) which directly resulted in
the person’s suicide.
8.3. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh,
reported in AIR 2001 SC 383, this Court has
analysed different meanings of “instigation”. The
relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced
herein:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. 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. Yet a reasonable certainty
to incite the consequence must be capable of
being spelt out. The present one is not a case
where the accused had by his acts or omission
or by a continued course of conduct created
such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide…..27/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
27
in which case an instigation may have been
inferred. A word uttered in the heat of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.”
8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were
elucidated by this Court in M.Mohan vs. State,
AIR 2011 SC 1238, as under:
“43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra
v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16
SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an
occasion to deal with this aspect of
abetment. The Court dealt with the
dictionary meaning of the word
“instigation” and “goading”. The Court
opined that there should be intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter. Each person’s
suicidability pattern is different from the
others. Each person has his own idea of…..28/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
28
selfesteem and selfrespect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straitjacket
formula in dealing with such cases. Each
case has to be decided on the basis of its
own facts and circumstances.
44. 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.
45. The intention of the legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by this Court are
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 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…..29/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
29
such a position that he/she committed
suicide.”
8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be
meted out in order to bring a case under
Section 306 IPC were also discussed in
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. West bengal AIR
2010 SC 512, in the following paragraphs:
“12. 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…..30/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
30
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 306 IPC is not
sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306 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 by the…..31/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
31
prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC.”
8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix
of the instant case and the law regarding
Secion 306 IPC, there seems to be no
proximate link between the marital discord
between the deceased and the appellant and
her subsequent death by burning herself. The
appellant has not committed any positive or
direct act to instigate or aid in the commission
of suicide by the deceased.”
20. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State
of M.P., reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, the Hon’ble Apex
Court extensively dealt with concept of ‘abetment’ in the
context of the offence punishable under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code. In that case, the allegation against
the accused/appellant therein was that he had abetted the
commission of suicide of his sister’s husband one Chander
…..32/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
32
Bhushan. The facts reveals that there were matrimonial
disputes between sister of the appellant/accused and her
husband and in connection with the said disputes, the
appellant had allegedly threatened and abused Chander
Bhushan. Chander Bhushan committed suicide and the
suicide was attributed by the prosecution to the quarrel
that had taken place between the appellant and the said
Chander Bhushan, a day prior. It was alleged that the
appellant had used abusive language against said Chander
Bhushan and had told him “to go and die”. The appellant,
who had been chargesheeted for an offence punishable
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a
Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, for quashing the proceedings against him, but
his Petition was dismissed by the High Court. While
allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia,
observed as follows:
…..33/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
33
“Even if we accept the prosecution story that the
appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that
itself does not constitute the ingredient of
‘instigation’. The word ‘instigate’ denotes
incitement or urging to do some drastic or
unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite.
Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary
concomitant of instigation.”
21. Thus, a direct influence or an oblique impact with
the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in
the mind of the deceased and which draw him to suicide
will not be sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of
suicide. A fatal impulse or ill-fated thoughts of the
suicide, however unfortunate and touchy it may be,
cannot fray the fabric of the provision contained in
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to bring
out an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code specific abetment as contemplated by Section 306 of
…..34/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
34
the Indian Penal Code on the part of the accused with an
intention to bring about the suicide of the person
concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The
intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet
the deceased to commit suicide is a must for an offence
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ramesh Kumar
vs. State of Chattiness, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383
referred in Prabhu vs. The State represented by the
Inspector of Police and anr supra, in para No.20 has
examined different meaning of ‘instigation’, which reads
as, ‘instigation’ is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do “an act”. 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
…..35/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
35
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
present one is not a case where the accused had by his
acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide in which
case an instigation may have been inferred. A word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
‘instigation’.
23. Thus, combine reading of Sections 306, 107, and
108 of the Indian Penal Code, shows the requirement is a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid
in committing suicide and in the absence of the same, the
conviction cannot be sustained. There has to be a clear
…..36/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
36
intention to commit the offence for being held liable
under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.
24. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Mariano
Anto Bruno vs. State, reported in (2023)15 SCC 560 in
the context of culpability under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code, observed as under :
“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 306
IPC is not sustainable.”
25. After going through the catena of decisions, it
reveals that test that the court should adopt in these types
of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis
…..37/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
37
of the materials on record whether there is anything to
indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the
consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. To attract the
provisions what is to be shown is that the accused have
actually instigated or aided in the victim act of
committing suicide. There must be direct or indirect
incitement to the commission of suicide and the accused
must be shown to have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide.
26. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals
that allegation is that there was extra-marital relationship
between the applicant and the deceased. Except
statements of witnesses, there is no evidence on record to
show that she was insisting for money and the deceased
…..38/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
38
time to time was paying her money. Even statements
nowhere disclose that in their presence at any point of
time the applicant has insisted for marriage. From the
statement of the wife of the deceased, it revealed that she
was threatened by the applicant. However, admittedly,
she has not disclosed the said incident immediately after
23.9.2019 and, thereafter, the alleged incident has taken
place on 23.9.2019. The statement of the wife of the
deceased was recorded on 18.1.2020. Initially, a merg
was registered and inquest panchanama was drawn.
However, she has not made any complaint as to the said
incident.
27. First clause of Section 107 of the Indian Penal
Code lays down that a person, who abets the doing of a
thing, is a person who instigates any person to do that
thing. Therefore, ‘instigation’ to do a particular thing is
…..39/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
39
necessary for charging a person with abetment. even in
cases where the victim commits suicide, which may be as
a result of cruelty meted out to her, the Courts have
always held that discord and differences in domestic life
are quite common in society and that the commission of
such an offence largely depends upon the mental state of
the victim. Surely, until and unless some guilty intention
on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily
not possible to convict him for an offence under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code. The only thing that simply
saying somebody or asking him to marry itself would not
amount to abetment or suicide.
As far as the demand of money is concerned,
except bare words, admittedly, none of statements
discloses that money was paid to the applicant by the
deceased and, therefore, in such a situation, merely
…..40/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
40
because the deceased refused to marry her, that by itself
would not amount to instigate or provoke the deceased to
commit suicide.
28. A plain reading of Sections 107, 108, and 306 of
the Indian Penal Code and applying it to the undisputed
facts of the present case indicates that none of ingredients
are attracted to the case in hand.
29. After having sifted weigh through the evidence on
record and gone through investigation papers and
considering materials on record, it is difficult to hold that
inference of grave suspicion can be raised against the
applicant on the basis of the evidence on record. The
material appears to be insufficient for subjecting the
applicant to trial. On the basis of the evidence on record,
it cannot be stated that the material is sufficient for the
prosecution to establish the charge against the applicant.
…..41/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
41
Subjecting the applicant to trial on the basis of the above
said evidence would not only be a mere formality, but also
abuse of process of law. Learned Sessions Judge ought to
have appreciated this position while deciding the
application for discharge. Learned Sessions Judge ought
to have appreciated that ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 are absent. Even, if it is assumed that the
material collected by the prosecution is true, it would not
be sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution and,
therefore, the conducting of the trial against the applicant
would be an empty formality. I am, therefore, of the view
that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Hence, I
proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(1) The Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
…..42/-
Judgment
425 revn207.24
42
(2) The order dated 12.9.2024 passed below Exhibit-13
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions
Trial No.117/2021 rejecting the discharge application is
quashed and set aside.
(3) The applicant is hereby discharged of the offence
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in connection
with Crime No.225/2019 registered with the non-
applicant police station.
Revision stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge …../-
Date: 10/07/2025 11:03:28
[ad_2]
Source link