Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Samundra Singh vs State on 11 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:12571]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5698/2022
Madhu Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Ramdeora Ps Ramdeora Tehsil Pokaran Dist. Jaisalmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3594/2020
Samundra Singh S/o Pabu Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Village
Mava, Police Station Ramdeora, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5920/2022
Tejaram S/o Mr. Durgaram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ramdevra,
Teh. Pokhran, Distt. Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv assisted by
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
Mr. Manvendra Singh
Mr. Rajendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Gurjar, GA cum AAG with
Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan AAAG
Mr. Bhawani Singh, CO, Pokaran
(Jaisalmer)
Mr. Moti Singh for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
REPORTABLE Order Reserved on : 05/03/2025
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (2 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]
Date of pronouncement: 11/03/2025
All these three misc petitions have been filed by the
petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 65/2020 registered at Police
Station Ramdeora, District Jaisalmer for offence under Sections
306, 447, 427, 323 & 143 IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) &
3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
An FIR No. 65/2020 came to be registered on the basis of
Parcha bayan of Girdhari lal S/o Pratapa Ram in which he stated
that on 13.09.2020, Samandar Singh, Babu Singh Tanwar, Jhabar
Singh, Madhu Singh, Aam Singh, Derawar Singh and Dilip Singh
came to his Dhani and beaten him and his brother Babu lal. It was
alleged that they also broke his Water tank. He went to Tehsildar
office to complain but Tehsildar was not in his office. Thereafter,
he went to Police Station Pokaran, took petrol out of his
motorcycle, poured on his body and lit himself. It was alleged that
he has taken this step being troubled with Sarpanch and his family
members. Initially the FIR was registered for offence under
Section 447, 427, 423, 143 IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) &
3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but later on
Girdhari lal succumbed to injuries and offence under Section 306
IPC was added.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that
no offence under Sections 306 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)
(r) & 3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out
against the petitioners as there is no evidence pointing out
complicity of the petitioner in commission of offence. It is argued
that the deceased in his statement has specifically stated that he
was upset/troubled as accused Samandar Singh, Babu Singh
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (3 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]
Tanwar, Sarpanch, Ramdeora and Jhabar Singh, Madhu Singh,
Aam Singh, Derawar Singh and Dilip Singh came to his Dhani and
broke the Tank. He went to the office of Tehsildar but did not fine
anyone thereafter, he went to the Police station, Pokaran. When he
did not get any positive response, he self immolated himself. It is
argued that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken to
be true, even then the deceased ought to have taken legal remedy
from the competent authority or Court against the accused
persons. The deceased had already approached the authorities
including the Sarpanch and police. The accused persons did not
instigate or abetted the deceased to commit suicide and therefore,
the offence under Section 306 IPC is clearly not made out.
Similarly, the offence under Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(y) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are also not made out as the
deceased in his statement has nowhere stated that the accused
persons intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to
humiliate him being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe within public view or tried to dispossess him.
Therefore, the FIR No. 65/2020 registered at Police Station
Ramdeora, District Jaisalmer for offence under Sections 306 IPC
and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act may be quashed. Learned counsel placed reliance
on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase
Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2025 0 SC 117, Prakash & Ors Vs.
State of Maharashtra (SLP Crl. No. 1073/2023) decided on
20.12.2024, Mangal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2025
Supreme (Online) (Raj) 1644.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (4 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant submits that it is well settled legal position that
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in
exceptional cases when the Court finds that from the allegation
made in the FIR/complaint even prima facie no offence is made
out against the accused but in the present case from the evidence
collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no case is
made out against the petitioners for offence under Section 306
IPC. The deceased in his statement has categorically stated that
all the accused persons troubled him and therefore, he had taken
such a step. Moreover, the accused persons are already on bail
and they have every opportunity to raise all the arguments at the
time of framing of charges and at this stage, the FIR is not liable
to be quashed.
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 levelled by the deceased against the present petitioners
is that the accused persons came to his Dhani and beaten him and
his brother Babu lal. They also broke his Water tank. He
thereafter, went to Tehsildar office to complain but Tehsildar was
not in his office. Thereafter, he went to Police Station Pokaran,
took petrol out of his motorcycle, poured on his body and self
immolated. During his treatment, a statement was recorded
before the Magistrate in repeated the version of FIR, which reads
as under :-
"Q. vkius vius "kjhj ij vkx D;ksa yxkbZ \
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (5 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]
Ans. tCcjflag iq= dkuflag] nsjkojflag iq= vkeflag] fnyhi flag iq=
tsBwflag o muds Hkkb;ksa ds lkFk esa leqUnzflag Hkh Fks mUgksaus esjs [ksr esa
cus Vkad dks vkt 2 cts rksM+ fn;kA IykLVj dj jgs Fks mldks rksM
fn;k fQj eSa dkjhxj dks NksMus iksdj.k vk;kA eSa rglhynkj o ,l
Mh ,e dks feyus vk;k Fkk oks ;gka Fks ughaA ek/kqflag vkj vkbZ us dgk
fd oks ugha ekurs gS rks ge D;k djsa ogka esjh fdlh us ugha lquh rks eSa
iksdj.k Fkkus x;k ogka Fkkus ds ckgj eSaus [kqn ij iSV ªksy Mkydj vkx
yxk nh fQj cpus ds fy, Fkkus ds vUnj ?kql x;kA Fkkus ds flikfg;ksa us
vkdj esjh vkx cq>kbZ esjs 'kjhj esa vkx vkt eSaus [kqn us yxkbZA "
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
(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.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (6 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]
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, it is to be seen whether the abettor
intentionally instigated or aided the commission of the suicide.
Mere allegations of pestering, annoyance or strained relationships
etc 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
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (7 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]
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
position he/ she would have no other option but to commit
suicide.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (8 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]
It is relevant to refer to statement of two independent
witnesses Manohar Ram and Chanana Ram. Both these witnesses
have stated that there is a dispute going on between Jhabar Singh
and Pratapa Ram with regard to land as there was no proper
demarcation done by Patwari. On the date of incident, Girdhari
Ram who is son of Pratapa Ram was getting a water tank
constructed. Girdhari asked Manohar Ram to fetch Sarpanch. The
witness came back with Samandar Singh, Sarpanch who asked
Girdhari lal to stop the construction till Diwali and after Diwali, he
will get the demarcation done positively. Samandar Singh and
other persons left but Girdhari lal went to Pokaran on his
motorcycle. Thus, there is no evidence or any material on record
showing that the petitioners explicitly provoked, goaded, or
instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The material on record
reflects that allegedly, the petitioners insisted the deceased to
stop construction of water tank. The primary interest of the
petitioners appears to be convincing the deceased to stop
construction, not forcing the deceased to take his life. The alleged
conduct does not fall within the ambit of “incitement” or
“instigation”. In the case of suicide, a mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there be such an action on the part of the accused that
compels the person to commit suicide and such an offending
action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (9 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]
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
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
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (10 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]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
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(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (11 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]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.
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
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (12 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]
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
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(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (13 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]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
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(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (14 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]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
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(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (15 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]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
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
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (16 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]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
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(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (17 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]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.”
There is no allegation against the petitioners of a nature
that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit
the unfortunate act of committing suicide. Therefore, the
offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the
petitioners.
Similarly, from the perusal of the FIR so also the
statement of deceased Girdhari lal, there is nothing to suggest
that the accused petitioners intended to humiliate the deceased
being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
(SC/ST) based on his caste nor any such allegation has been
levelled by the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of Swaran Singh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5758, referring to
the word ‘public view/public premises’ and also the purport of
the provisions of the Act, held that the Court has to see the
purpose for which the Act was enacted. It was obviously made
to prevent indignities, humiliation and harassment to the
members of SC/ST community, as is evident from the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act. In the present
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (18 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]
case, neither the deceased, prior to his death nor the
independent witnesses who were present at the time of
occurrence have stated that the petitioners had humiliated or
abused the deceased. Therefore, the offence under Sections
3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act are also not made out against the petitioners.
Consequently, the present misc petitions are partly
allowed. The FIR No. 65/2020 registered at Police Station
Ramdeora, District Jaisalmer is hereby quashed to the extent of
offence under Sections 306 IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) &
3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The police is
directed to conduct and complete the investigation in the FIR
with respect to other offences.
The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
36-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)