Tukaram Motiram Jadhav And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra
2025 Latest Caselaw 6585 Bom

Bombay High Court

Tukaram Motiram Jadhav And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2025

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

            2025:BHC-AS:43313
                                                                                               13 REVN 339-22.doc


                                Ashish
ASHISH   Digitally signed by
         ASHISH SAHEBRAO
SAHEBRAO MHASKE
MHASKE
         Date: 2025.10.08
         16:32:31 +0530

                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 339 OF 2022


                                Tukaram Motiram Jadhav and ors                 ... Applicants
                                           V/s.
                                The State of Maharashtra                       ... Respondent


                                Mr. Ajay Bhise, for the applicants.
                                Mrs.Kranti Hiwrale, APP for respondent - State.
                                Mr. R.G. Patil, PSI, Peth Police Station, Nashik.


                                                              CORAM     : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                              DATED     : OCTOBER 8, 2025
                                P.C.:

1. The applicants have challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nashik, by which their application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge from the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, came to be rejected.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, who is the father of the deceased, lodged a report alleging that his son was constantly subjected to mental pressure and threats by the accused persons. It is alleged that the accused persons were repeatedly insisting that the deceased should marry accused No.1, Kusum Motiram Jadhav. It is further alleged that the accused persons were defaming the deceased and his family members and

13 REVN 339-22.doc

had also threatened to implicate the deceased in a false criminal case. Being unable to bear this persistent harassment, the deceased is said to have consumed poison and committed suicide. On this basis, Crime No.17 of 2017 came to be registered at Peth Police Station, Nashik, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at the instance of the deceased's father.

3. The learned Advocate for the applicants invited attention to two alleged suicide notes said to have been left by the deceased. He submitted that even if the contents of the suicide notes are taken at their face value, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. According to him, the material on record does not establish any act of instigation, intentional aid, or participation by the applicants that could attract Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines abetment. Consequently, the offence under Section 306 of the Code is not made out. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, to contend that in the absence of a clear act of instigation or active participation, the charge under Section 306 cannot stand.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the material collected during investigation, including the suicide note, clearly refers to the applicants and indicates their active role in causing mental harassment to the deceased. She contended that at this stage, the court is only required to see whether there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial. According to her, the suicide note and other

13 REVN 339-22.doc

material on record prima facie fulfill the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the discharge application.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and examined the material placed on record, the following reasons arise for allowing the revision.

6. The order impugned arises from the rejection of the applicant's discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was expected to determine whether the material on record disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicants for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The test at this stage is whether there is sufficient ground to presume that the accused have committed the offence, and not whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court must still ensure that the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are at least prima facie disclosed from the material available.

7. The record indicates that the entire prosecution case rests upon general allegations that the accused persons repeatedly insisted that the deceased should marry accused No.1, Kusum Motiram Jadhav, and allegedly threatened to defame him or implicate him in a false case. Except for these allegations, there is no material to show any direct or proximate act of instigation, intentional aid, or participation by any of the accused in the commission of suicide.

13 REVN 339-22.doc

8. The two suicide notes relied upon by the prosecution have been carefully examined. The first note contains expressions of frustration and mental agony, but it does not attribute any specific act or threat of such gravity that could reasonably drive a person to commit suicide. The second note is also general in nature. The deceased has not stated that any of the applicants directly provoked, coerced, or aided him in taking the extreme step. Mere reference to the names of the accused, without any specific role suggesting active incitement or abetment, cannot constitute the offence of abetment of suicide.

9. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code requires proof of abetment as defined under Section 107. Abetment necessarily involves instigation, intentional aiding, or active participation in the commission of the act. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 has clearly held that unless there is evidence of direct or indirect incitement or wilful act of instigation, the offence under Section 306 is not attracted. It was observed that mere harassment, ordinary discord, or strained relationship does not constitute abetment of suicide unless it is shown that the accused had intended that the deceased should commit suicide.

10. Applying the above principles, the facts alleged in the present case do not satisfy the statutory ingredients of abetment. There is no material to indicate that the applicants intended or anticipated that their conduct would drive the deceased to commit suicide. The alleged acts of persuasion for marriage and the alleged threats are too remote and vague to establish the element

13 REVN 339-22.doc

of mens rea required for abetment.

11. It is well settled that when the material on record does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, the court is duty- bound to discharge the accused under Section 227 of the Code. The court must be satisfied that the facts alleged, if taken at their face value, constitute the offence alleged. In the absence of such material, compelling the accused to face trial would amount to abuse of the process of law.

12. The trial court, while rejecting the discharge application, has not recorded any finding to show how the basic ingredients of abetment under Section 107 are satisfied. The reasoning of the court below is general and mechanical. It merely states that the suicide note refers to the accused persons and hence their role is evident. Such observation does not meet the requirement of Section 227, which obliges the court to apply its judicial mind and assess whether the material prima facie establishes the ingredients of the alleged offence.

13. The suicide note, at the most, raises suspicion of strained relations or social pressure. But suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof of the necessary legal ingredients. The law does not penalize every act of quarrel or mental stress which might lead a person to suicide. It only punishes those acts where the accused has intentionally abetted the commission of suicide.

14. Considering the totality of material on record, there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

13 REVN 339-22.doc

The continuation of prosecution in such circumstances would amount to harassment and abuse of process of law.

15. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nashik, dated 7 September 2025, rejecting the application for discharge, is set aside. The applicants stand discharged from the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

16. It is clarified that these observations are confined to the adjudication of the present revision and shall not affect any independent proceedings, if permissible in law, on any distinct cause of action.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)