Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Amaied @ Attu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:33682) on 30 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:33682]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 610/2023
1. Amaied @ Attu S/o Miyagul, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Rampol, Darvajake Pass Rajtalb , Banswara.
2. Sonu Mohsin S/o Nurjama, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Abullapir, Banswara.
3. Sadik S/o Sohrab Khan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Abullapir Dargah K Pass Banswara.
4. Tabbsum W/o Javed, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Indira
Colony, Banswara.
5. Jinat D/o Salim Khan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Indira
Colony, Banswara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Tabrez S/o Lad. Mohd., R/o Khokhar, R/o House No. 256,
Rajtalab Dist. Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parikshit Nayak
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, Assistant to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
30/07/2025
The present criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners
against the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No.49/2023, by
which the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the
petitioners for offence under Section 306 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant Tabrej
Mohammad filed an FIR No.435/2020 at Police Station Kotwali
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (2 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]
Banswara, District Banswara to the effect that his younger brother
Gulrej Mohammad lend some money from the accused-petitioners.
The accused persons harassed his brother for demand of money.
On 06.11.2020 at about 6.15 p.m. his younger brother committed
suicide. On this report, a case was registered against the
petitioners.
After investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against
the present petitioners and thereafter the case was committed for
trial before the Sessions Judge, Banswara, where the charges of
the case were framed against the accused petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
suicide note, name of the present petitioners were not mentioned
and the Police have falsely implicated the present petitioners in
this case. Counsel further submits that there are material
contradictions and improvements in the statement of witnesses
and no independent witness was present in this case. It is further
argued that there is no evidence on record, from which it is clear
that the accused petitioners harassed the deceased for demand of
money. Therefore, offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made
out against the present petitioners. Learned counsel placed
reliance on recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of M.P. Vs. Sudbir Pingle reported in 2000 Cr.L.J 944
and this Court in the cse of Ravindra Kumar Rampuriya Vs.
State of Rajasthan reported in AIR Online 2024 Raj. 928.
Per contra, learned Assistant to Addl. Advocate General
vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the
petitioners and submits there is no illegality and perversity in the
order passed by the learned trial Court while framing the charges
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (3 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]
against the petitioners, therefore, the present revision petition
filed by the petitioners may kindly be dismissed.
I have heard rival contention of the parties and carefully
considered the material available on record.
In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be apt to
refer to Section 306 of I.P.C. which 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 alsobe 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
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
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (4 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]
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
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
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (5 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]
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
position he/ she would have no other option but to commit
suicide.
From a bare perusal of the record of the present case and
suicide note, it is evident that the deceased has not written the
name of the present petitioners for demanding the money from
him. It is not found on record that the accused petitioners
harassed the deceased for demanding the money.
Legally, for an act to constitute abetment of suicide, there
must be a direct and proximate link between the accused’s actions
and the deceased’s decision to end their life. Mere allegations of
harassment are insufficient. The accused’s conduct must be of
such a nature that it compels the victim to commit suicide, and
this conduct must be close in time to the suicide. In this case, the
suicide note and other evidence do not establish such a link
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (6 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]
between the petitioner’s actions and the deceased’s suicide.
Therefore, based on the contents of the suicide note and the
absence of evidence demonstrating the petitioner’s instigation,
harassment, or any action compelling the suicide, there is no legal
basis to attribute responsibility for the deceased’s death to the
petitioner.
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.
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(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (7 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]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
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
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (8 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]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
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.
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (9 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]
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
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(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (10 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]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
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.”
Recently, 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(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (11 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]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
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
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (12 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]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
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(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (13 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]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
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
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (14 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]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 306 IPC is not
sustainable.”
Recently, in the case Lamxi Das vs The State of West
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(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (15 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]that creates an environment where the deceased is
pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of
Section 306 IPC.”
Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial
pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the trial
Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet
and the witness statements, 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 no plausible motive is established, and the
relationship between the accused and the deceased does not
suggest any ill-willed intent, the charge could be set aside. If
there is no proof of any active role played by the accused in the
events leading up to the suicide, such as abusive behaviour or
threats, the Court may set aside the charge. Simple negligence or
even an argument that does not directly lead to the suicide would
not be sufficient to prove abetment.
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.
In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that trial court
has committed an error in framing charge for offence under
Section 306 IPC against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the
impugned order dated 10.04.2023 passed by learned Sessions
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33682] (16 of 16) [CRLR-610/2023]
Judge, Banswara in Session Case No.49/2023 is hereby quashed
and set aside. The petitioners are discharged from the said
offence.
The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
105-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:54:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)