Gautambhai Harjibhai Bhoj vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Gautambhai Harjibhai Bhoj vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2025

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/SCR.A/1812/2015                              ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025

                                                                                                           undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1812 of 2015

                       ==========================================================
                                             GAUTAMBHAI HARJIBHAI BHOJ & ANR.
                                                          Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       JAIVIK UDAY BHATT(7319) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
                       MILAN R MARUTI(7338) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
                       DR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                        Date : 01/10/2025

                                                         ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being C.R. No.10 of 2015 filed before the Kagdapith Police Station, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The aforesaid complaint alleges offences punishable under Sections 306, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the factual milieu reveals that the complainant, Mansukhbhai Maljibhai Hedamba, a labourer residing at Rajivnagar Harbakui, Salangpur Road, Botad, stated that his sister, Geetaben, was married about six to seven years ago to Mukeshbhai Harjibhai Bhoj in accordance with caste customs. Geetaben resided with her in-laws in a joint family comprising her husband, his parents, and siblings. Around a year prior to her death, Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined Geetaben confided to the complainant's wife that her sister-in-law, Deepikaben, and brother-in-law, Gautambhai, were engaged in an illicit affair, and subsequently began harassing and threatening her, warning that they would commit suicide and hold her responsible if she disclosed their actions. Despite efforts by the complainant and his family to resolve the matter, the harassment continued.

2.1. On 17.01.2015, the complainant received a call from a relative informing him of the seriousness of Geetaben's condition. On reaching Ahmedabad with family members and community elders, they were informed at V S Hospital that Geetaben had died. It was gathered that during disputes within the in-laws' household, attempts were made to protect Deepikaben, while Geetaben tragically hanged herself in her in-laws' house with her saree. The complainant therefore lodged a complaint against Deepikaben and Gautambhai Bhoj, alleging that their harassment and threats contributed to his sister's suicide, and identified his family members and other witnesses as witnesses to the incident.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned FIR, even if taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the essential ingredients constituting an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is contended that the sine qua non for attracting Section 306 IPC is the existence of a clear act of "abetment", as defined under Section 107 IPC, which envisages intentional instigation, active aiding, or facilitation of the commission of suicide.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined It is urged that the FIR is conspicuously silent as to any overt act, instigating conduct, or mens rea attributable to the petitioners that could be construed as having "urged forward," "aided," or "intentionally facilitated" the commission of suicide. In absence whereof, the very foundation of the allegations crumbles.

3.1. Learned advocate would further submit that the mere existence of strained relations, discord, or alleged immoral conduct cannot, by any stretch of legal interpretation, be elevated to the status of abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. Reliance is placed on the settled proposition of law that mere allegations of harassment, unaccompanied by proximate instigation or intentional aiding, do not constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC.

3.2. It is next submitted that the alleged reference to an illicit affair, purportedly narrated by the deceased, pertains to an incident more than a year prior to the unfortunate occurrence. Such stale allegations, being temporally remote and devoid of immediate provocation, lack the element of proximity necessary to establish a causal nexus between the alleged act and the suicide. Thus, it is submitted to allow the present petition.

4. Though duly served, none remained present for the private respondent.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the petition and requested that a necessary order be Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined passed based on the merits of the case and the material on record.

6. I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State and have perused the record of the case. The short question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law, thereby warranting the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

7. With respect to the offence under Section 306 IPC, it becomes imperative to delineate the sine qua non for the commission of such offence, namely the element of "abetment" as contemplated under Section 107 IPC. The statutory exposition of abetment, as enshrined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

"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."

8. It clearly postulates that there must be some overt and positive act on the part of the accused amounting to intentional aiding of the Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined deceased, or conduct legally recognized as instigation of such a nature so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The law requires something more than a mere casual remark or ordinary discord; it must rise to the level of an act or omission which, by its gravity, compels or goads the deceased to take the extreme step.

9. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, the Supreme Court has explained the offence of "abetment of suicide" punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in reference to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court also explained the meaning of the words "instigation" and "goad". Relevant paras are as under:-

"20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self.

21. In the present case, the charge against the appellant is that he along with other two accused "in furtherance of common intention", mentally tortured Jitendra Sharma (the deceased) and abetted him to commit suicide by the said act of mental torture. It is trite that words uttered on the spur of the moment or in a quarrel, without something more cannot be taken to have been uttered with mens rea. The onus is on Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined the prosecution to show the circumstances which compelled the deceased to take an extreme step to bring an end to his life.

22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted above, statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation, tend to show that on account of business transactions with the accused, including the appellant herein, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased was left with no other option except to end his life and, therefore, clause firstly of Section 107 of the IPC was attracted.

23. Briefly dealing with the material available on record, in the order directing framing of charge against the appellant, the learned trial court has observed as under:-

"In the present case the evidence shows threatening given to the deceased. One witness called Kartar Singh says that CK Chopra was heard saying to the deceased that the deceased had become dishonest because he was refusing to sign a paper in which the share in some joint property was shown to be 10%. On another occasion Chopra was heard by this witness to say that Chopra would ruin the deceased if he did not give up his claim for 25% and did not agree to accept 10%. Witness Padam Bahadur has stated inter alia that he overheard Jahoor and Mahavir telling the deceased that Chopra had asked them to say that this was the last opportunity to sign the document and that if he wanted to live in the society he should sign the agreement or should die by taking poison. Soon thereafter the deceased committed suicide. Thus the evidence is not of a mere quarrel in which one person told the other go and die without actually suggesting that the opponent should commit suicide. In the present case the evidence collected by the investigation suggest that the deceased had been actually pushed to the wall and the escape by committing suicide was suggested by the accused persons."

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined

24. In the light of the material on record, in our judgment, it cannot be said that the trial court was in error in drawing an inference that the appellant had "instigated" the deceased to commit suicide and, therefore, there was ground for presuming that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See: Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Ors5)."

10. In this context, a recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in J.P. Chavda & Ors v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2024 INSC 960, has comprehensively analyzed the indispensable requirements for establishing the offence under Section 306 IPC. The Court, in paragraphs 16 to 25 of the said judgment, has elaborated upon the constituent ingredients of abetment, the necessity of a proximate and live link between the alleged conduct of the accused and the commission of suicide, and the judicial tests evolved to distinguish mere harassment or discord from culpable instigation in law. Relevant paras of the same are as under:-

"16. Section 306 of the I.P.C. provides for punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide. It has to be read with Sec. 107 of the I.P.C. which defines the act of 'abetment'. The provisions read as follows :-

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined "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."

"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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life.

18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea--the intention to abet the act--is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan5, wherein it was observed that:

"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 the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC 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."

19. To bring a conviction under section 306, IPC it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation of circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh6, defined the word "instigate" as under:

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation (2001) 9 SCC 618 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 Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined 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."

20. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case under Section 306, IPC are: -

i. the abetment;

ii. the intention of the accused to aid or instigate

21. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative that the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the Court must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide.

22. It is essential to establish that the death was a result of suicide and that the accused actively abetted its commission. This can involve instigating the victim or engaging in specific actions that facilitated the act. The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused played a definitive role in the abetment. Without clear evidence of an active role in provoking or assisting the suicide, a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.

23. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated through actions or behaviors of the accused that directly contributed to the victim's decision to take their own life. Harassment, in itself, does not suffice unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined Furthermore, these actions must be proximate to the time of the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the accused's behavior and the tragic outcome. It is only through the establishment of this direct link that a conviction under Section 306 IPC can be justified. The prosecution bears the burden of proving this active involvement to hold the accused accountable for the alleged abetment of suicide. The same position has been laid down by this court in several judgments, such as:

i. M. Mohan v. State, 2011 (3) SCC 626 ii. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, 2010 (1) SCC 707 iii. Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka, 2007 SCC Online Kar. 824

24. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, (2011) 3 SCC 626 (2010) 1 SCC 707 (2007) SCC OnLine Kar 824 requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused's role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines whether the accused's conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim's self- esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused's intent and its impact on the victim.

25. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana10, held that to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the intent or mental state to commit the specific crime must be evident when assessing culpability. It was observed as under:

"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect (2019) 17 SCC 301 Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self- respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. 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 and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined the accused intended nothing more than harassment or 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. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."

11. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements to the factual matrix of the present case, it becomes manifest that none of the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code are even remotely discernible from the contents of the FIR. The tenor and purport of the allegations, when read as a whole, do not, in any manner, suggest that the petitioners had instigated, incited, or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide.

11.1. There is no prima facie allegation in the FIR which could even suggest that any specific overt act on the part of the petitioners had the effect of creating such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option but to take the extreme step. The FIR merely records that the petitioners, long prior to the incident, had allegedly threatened the deceased not to disclose their relationship, failing which they themselves would commit suicide. Such remote and unconnected assertion, devoid of any contemporaneous act of provocation or intentional instigation, falls short of constituting the offence of abetment as envisaged under Section 107 IPC.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1812/2015 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined

12. Furthermore, the material emerging from the investigation papers unequivocally demonstrates that the deceased had left behind a suicide note, wherein she categorically stated that she was weary of her physical afflictions and hardships, and that she was ending her life on account of the same. Significantly, she also recorded therein that her husband was in no manner responsible for her act of self- destruction.

13. In view of the aforesaid, it becomes abundantly clear that the requisite mens rea and the proximate causal connection between the alleged acts of the petitioners and the commission of suicide are wholly absent. Ergo, the invocation of Sections 306 and 114 IPC against the petitioners is wholly misconceived and legally unsustainable.

14. Consequently, the petition is ALLOWED. The complaint being C.R. No.10 of 2015 filed before the Kagdapith Police Station, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside, qua the present petitioners.

15. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 22:30:25 IST 2025