Gujarat High Court
Sulemanbhai Paulbhai Dabhi vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 227 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SULEMANBHAI PAULBHAI DABHI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AS ASTHAVADI(3698) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR RAXIT J DHOLAKIA(3709) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 06/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1) By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C"), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 16.02.2026 passed by learned 6 th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, below Exh:6 and thereby discharge the applicants from the Sessions Case No.93/2017.
2) Heard Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.Rohan Raval, learned APP for the respondent - State and Mr. Raxit J. Dholakia, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
3) Brief facts narrated in the complaint are that the applicants accused are employees of the Government of India i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), whereas, the deceased Chhotabhai Dhulabhai Parmar was also working with the BSNL from 1983 onward and was transferred to Uttarsanda Telephone Exchange in the year 1996. The said deceased Chhotabhai died on 29.07.2008 due to consuming poison and found near Railway Crossing, Uttarsanda in a position, wherein he had consumed poison and therefore he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Nadiad in ambulance and thereafter, he was taken to Maha Gujarat, Hospital, where he was declared dead. It is alleged in the complaint that the deceased decided to end his life due to harassment from the accused herein as the accused were giving memos to the deceased time and again in view of official work, and therefore the deceased remained under tension, which compelled him to commit suicide. Pursuant to the same, FIR being C.R. No.137/2009 was registered at Chaklasi Police Station, under Sections 306, 106, 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants. Charge sheet came to be filed. The applicants thereafter Misc Criminal Application No.14173 of 2009 before this Court, which came to be withdrawn by the accused with a liberty to file discharge application before the trial Court. In view of the said liberty granted by this Court, the applicants preferred an application for discharge, which was dismissed by learned trail Court.
Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, no ingredients of abetment to commit suicide or any evidence, directly or indirectly, suggest the involvement of the applicants. The applicants - accused have not incited the deceased for committing suicide, and no ingredients of Sections 306, 106 and 109 of the IPC are made out. Based on the statement of relatives, no offense is made out qua abetment. It clearly reveals that the deceased was an employee of BSNL, and as per the office record, no single memo or charge sheet was issued to the deceased. It is further submitted that the complainant only issued a correspondence on 1/4/2008, which was also subsequently sent to the office. Merely one employee of BSNL, Mr. Kamlesh has given a statement that accused No.2 was a superior officer and has given 10 to 12 memos and used to harass other subordinate employees, having no relevance to the case of the applicants. Merely the applicants were superior officers, and due to this reason, it cannot be said that they have instigated the deceased, being subordinate and incited him to commit suicide. The accused have performed their official duty in the Government hierarchy; being a higher officer is required to take/supervise the subordinate staff and to take work from them. Hence, in such submissions, learned Counsel for the applicants have submitted that the present revision application be allowed as prayed for.
5) Learned advocate for the complainant has strongly opposed the Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined present application and submitted that the case is not a simple case of mere subordination or routine workplace issues. It is contended that the involvement of the applicants is clearly borne out from the material collected during the investigation. It is further submitted that the deceased had been serving with BSNL since 1983 and was transferred to Uttarsanda in the year 1986. The deceased ultimately committed suicide on 29.07.2008 on account of continuous harassment allegedly caused by the accused persons. During the course of investigation conducted pursuant to the accidental death proceedings under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C, the son of the deceased discovered a communication dated 01.07.2008 addressed by the deceased to the higher authorities, wherein allegations regarding the misbehavior and ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons were specifically made. It is the case of the complainant that, as the deceased had raised his voice against such harassment, the higher officers, in collusion with the contractor and bearing grudge against him, continued to harass the deceased, which ultimately drove him to commit suicide. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that the present revision applications do not deserve consideration and are liable to be dismissed, as sufficient material has been collected during the investigation, warranting that the applicants face trial.
6) Learned APP appearing for the respondent State has also opposed the present application and adopted the arguments canvassed by Learned Counsel for the complainant.
Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
7) The essential ingredients to invoke the provision of Section 306 and Section 107 of IPC:
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.
Abetment defined under Section 107 of the IPC involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of 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 it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Abetment - Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. 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.
8) Section 306 of IPC penalises abetment of suicide. It is a unique legal phenomenon in the Indian Penal Code that the only act, the attempt of which along will become an offence. In order to invoke the provisions of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, section 107 of Indian Penal Code is required to be satisfied by the prosecution. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code includes the acts, omissions and commissions and also instigation with the deliberation and intention.
Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
Instigation consists in actively suggesting and stimulating another to act. It may be personal or through a third party. Instigation necessarily indicates some active suggestion, or support or stimulation to the commission of the act itself. There has to be a reasonable certainty in regard to the meaning of the words used by the 'inciter' in order to judge whether or not there was an incitement, but it is not necessary, in law, to prove the actual words used for the incitement. The word 'abetment' includes clause-3 namely 'abetment by aiding'. The third way of abetting is by intentionally aiding the doing of a thing by an act or illegal omission. In abetment by 'aid', it is not the intention to aid the commission of crime, that is punished, but the fact that something is done or not done, whereby the commission of a crime is rendered more easy. In instigation, the criminal intention is punished; in conspiracy, the intention plus some act; in aid, the act itself. Reading Cl. 3 of the section with Expl.2, which goes with it, for abetment by aid, four things must be combined :
9) An act which merely amounts to aiding the commission of an offence is not an abetment. The aiding must snowball into 'intentionally aiding' the doing of a thing. The commission of the act must be the dominant intention of the person who aids it. If a person only knows or has only reason to believe that his act would facilitate the commission of offence, it cannot be said that his dominant intention was that.Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
10) On one part of the Sub-clause (3) of Section 107 can be divided into two parts for doing and aiding act by making omission in doing an act. At times even refraining from action and mere impassivity makes a person liable to penalty. If person is duty bound to perform his duties in a particular manner and if he does not behaved in a manner, he ought to have, he causes continuous pressure and effects the mental attitude to the victim. The omission on the part of the accused shall include word 'aid' as mentioned in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. In present case no such evidence in connection of abetment to suicide being tendered by prosecution. Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.
11) Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, issuing memo or notice by the applicants cannot be said to be the proximate cause for the deceased to take such an extreme step. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision in the case of Kumar alias Shiva Kumar vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2024 SC 1283. Considering the gap between the application dated 01.04.2008 and the investigation papers, it appears that the same was forwarded to the Department only after the death of the deceased. Hence, there is no proximate link clearly established between the alleged act and the incident in question.
12) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal vs. State of
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Madhy Pradesh reported in (2007)10 SCC 797 has held that instigation literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, he must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
13) In the case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan reported in (2010)12 SCC 190, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:― "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 I.P.C. 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."
14) In the case of M. Arjunan vs. State (represented by its Inspector of Police) reported in (2019)3 SCC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to elucidate the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC in the following observations:
"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C."
15) Similarly, in another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019)17 Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined SCC 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC and the factors to be considered in determining whether a case falls within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in following terms:
"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 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) Further, 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 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 behavior, 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. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable 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. 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 prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.
17) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2020)10 SCC 200 has held that, as in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the accused had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.
Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 18) It is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mariano Anto Bruno vs. State reported in (2023)15 SCC 560, wherein in Page 16 of 23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"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."
19) Insofar as the allegation of harassment by the applicants to the deceased leading the deceased to commit suicide is concerned, it is submitted that mere harassment, cannot be sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide, without all the ingredients of section 306 of IPC being proved by the prosecution. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2024)3 SCC 573. In paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held as under:
"22. This Court in Kashibai vs. State of Karnataka, observed that to bring the case within the purview of "abetment" under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.
23. Had there been any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on account of which the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to her life, it could have been said that the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide. A person intends a consequence when he (1)foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined continue, and (2)desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test)."
20) Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it emerges as an undisputed and admitted position that the accused persons were employees of the Government of India undertaking, namely BSNL. The deceased as well as the accused were serving with BSNL in the capacities of Telephone Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer respectively. Accused No.1 has retired. The deceased, who had been in service since 1983, consumed poison and committed suicide on 29.07.2008. Pursuant thereto, Accidental Death Case No.15 of 2008 came to be registered with Chaklasi Police Station and the same was investigated. Thereafter, after a delay of approximately 14 months, the complaint came to be lodged. However, no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the complainant for such inordinate delay. The crux of the allegations against the accused is that they used to exert pressure and mentally harass the deceased by issuing memos and initiating departmental proceedings. It is needless to state that initiation of departmental action or issuance of memos against a subordinate employee by itself cannot be construed as instigation, nor can the same be brought within the ambit of mental harassment so as to attract the alleged offence. In this regard, reference is required to be made in the case of A.K. Chaudhary Vs. State of Gujarat and Others Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined reported in 2005 (3) GLH 444. Now coming back to the facts of the case: to invoke the provision of Section 306, it is important to refer to Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:-
Section - 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.IllustrationA, a public officer, is authorized 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
21) In view of the above, in absence of any mens rea on the part of the accused, the complaint is filed belatedly after a span of 14 months without any explanation. This court is of considered view that no offense is made out under Section 306 of the IPC. The concept of discharge in criminal jurisprudence operates as a constitutional safeguard by ensuring that no individual is subjected to the burden of a criminal trial unless the prosecution establishes a prima facie case.
22) For the foregoing reasons and observations, present revision application is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 16.02.2026 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, below Exh:6 in Sessions Case No.93/2017, FIR being C.R. Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined No.137/2009 registered at Chaklasi Police Station against the applicants and other consequential proceedings, if any, are hereby quashed and set aside.
23) The applicants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
Rule is made absolute. As the applicants accused are on bail, they need not surrender. The applicants are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The bail and bail bond stands cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:06 IST 2026