Bombay High Court
Varsha Ajay Tayade vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ... on 9 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10729-DB
2 apl 307-2022.odt 1/19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.307/2022
Varsha Ajay Tayade
Aged about 39 years, occ:household
R/o Q.no 347/28 Siddharth Budh Vihar Road,
new Tarfail Akola
... APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State Of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Khamgaon City, District : Buldhana
2. Sau Vandana Sagar Ingle
Aged about 45 years, Occ. agriculturist,
R/o. At post Panchsheel Nagar, Paras,
Near Railway Station,
Tq. Balapur District Akola
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for applicant
Ms H.N. Prabhu, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 09.10.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE , J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. The present application is preferred by the present applicant
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 0205/2019, registered by non-applicant No.1 - Police
Station Khamgaon City, District Buldhana, for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the
same bearing Special Session Trial Case No. 146/2019, pending
before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khamgaon.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case as emerge from the
police papers and recorded evidence are as under :
The complainant who is the mother of the deceased lodged
the First Information Report against the present applicant and other
co-accused on an allegation that the marriage of her daughter
Varsha was performed with the co-accused Vijay Manohar Tayade,
prior to seven years. From the said wedlock she is having one son.
After marriage, her daughter disclosed to her that her husband is
addicted to bad vices like drinking liquor and abuses, assaults and
beat her. It is further alleged that the present applicant and the
other co-accused instigated and induced him to abuse and ill treat
the deceased. Though, she tried to convince them, but they were
not considering her contentions, and therefore, she has lodged
previous report also. It is further alleged that on 17.04.2019, the
informant's another daughter had been to the house of the
deceased and met her, and her another daughter disclosed to the
informant that the deceased is ill-treated by her husband by
demanding the money for consuming liquor and beat her.
Thereafter, on 21.04.2019, deceased has committed suicide by
hanging herself. It is contended that due to the abetment at the
hands of the present applicant, and the other co-accused, the
deceased has committed suicide.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who submitted that
as far as the allegations levelled against the present applicant is
concerned, except the general statement that on the inducement of
the present applicant and other co-accused the husband of the
deceased was harassing her. There is no other material collected
against the present applicant. No specific instances are narrated by
the informant as far as the previous complaint is concerned, which
is against the husband and not against the present applicant. He
also invited our attention towards the various statements especially
the statement of the son of the deceased, wherein also, the present
applicant is not named, as she has abetted the deceased to commit
suicide. Thus, he submitted that even accepting the allegations as it
is, no offence is made out as there is no mens rea, on the part of the
accused apparent on the face of record, and therefore, the
application deserves to be allowed by quashing the First
Information Report and the consequent proceeding.
5. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the order
of this Court passed in Criminal Application (APL) No.28/2023,
decided on 17.09.2025.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submitted that at the time of quashing of the First Information
Report, what is required to be seen is, whether there was a requisite
mens rea, and obviously it is a matter of evidence. A strong
suspicion is also sufficient to proceed against the accused. She
submitted that overall material shows that the accused created
certain circumstances, which compelled the deceased to commit
suicide. The statements of various witnesses sufficiently show the
involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence,
therefore, at this stage, there is sufficient material to frame the
charge against the present applicant, and therefore, the application
deserves to be rejected.
7. Despite the service, none appears for the non-applicant No.2.
8. Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023) of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide, which
reads thus:
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.
Classification of offence. - The offence under this section
is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and
triable by Court of Session.
9. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 45 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment of a thing, which
reads thus:
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.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorised 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
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the
doing of that act.
10. Section 108 of the Indian Penal reads thus:
108. Abettor.-
A person abets an offence, who abets either the
commission of an offence, or the commission of an act
which would be an offence, if committed by a person
capable by law of committing an offence with the same
intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
Explanation 1. - The abetment of the illegal omission of
an act may amount to an offence although the abettor
may not himself be bound to do that act.
Explanation 2. - To constitute the offence of abetment it
is not necessary that the act abetted should be
committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the
offence should be caused.
Illustrations
(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so.
A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the
instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is
guilty of instigating B to commit murder.
Explanation 3. - It is not necessary that the person
abetted should be capable by law of committing an
offence, or that he should have the same guilty Intention
or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty
intention or knowledge.
Illustrations
(a) A, with a guilty Intention, abets a child or a lunatic
to commit an act which would be an offence, if
committed by a person capable by law of committing an
offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A,
whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting
an offence.
(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a
child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes
Z's death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the
act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z's death.
Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an
offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as
if B had been capable by law of committing an offence,
and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject
to the punishment of death.
(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B, in
consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being
incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is
doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the
house in consequence of A's instigation. B has committed
no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of
setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the
punishment, provided for that offence.
(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed,
instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z's
possession. A induces B to believe that the property
belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z's possession,
in good faith, believing it to be A's property. B, acting
under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and
therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of
abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if
B had committed theft.
Explanation 4. - The abetment of an offence being an
offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as
offence.
Illustration
A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly
instigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence in
consequence of B's instigation. B is liable to be punished
for his offence with the punishment for murder; and, as
A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to
the same punishment.
Explanation 5. - It is not necessary to the commission of
the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor
should concert the offence with the person who commits
it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in
pursuance of which the offence is committed.
Illustration
A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that
A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to
C mentioning that a third person is to administer the
poison, but without mentioning A's name. C agrees to
procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for
the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A
administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here,
though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has
been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z
has been murdered. C has therefore committed the
offence defined in this section and is liable to the
punishment for murder.
11. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code talks about abetment of
suicide and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of
another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also
be liable to fine.
The said Sections penalizes abetment of commission of
suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution
must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide.
Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three
criteria detailed in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. This
means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their
life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide.
12. A question arises as to when is a person said to have
instigated another. The word "instigate" means to goad or urge
forward provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act" which the
person otherwise would not have done.
13. It is well settled that in order to amount to abetment, there
must be mens rea. Without knowledge or intention, there cannot be
any abetment. The knowledge and intention must relate to the act
said to be abetted which in this case, is the act of committing
suicide. Therefore, in order to constitute abetment, there must be
direct incitement to do culpable act.
14. In the case of Prabhu vs. The State represented by the
Inspector of Police and anr, SP [Cri] Diary No. 39981/2022 decided
on 30.01.2024, relied by learned counsel for the applicant, by
referring the various earlier decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that the physical relationship over a considerable period of time was
out of mutual love between the appellant and the deceased and not
based on the promise of marriage. In the said case, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of
Kamlakar vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.1485/of 2011,
decided on 12.10.2023, and explained ingredients of Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code and held, as under:
"8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission
of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the
prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in
the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align
with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC.
This means the accused either encouraged the individual
to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the
person committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to
act) which directly resulted in the person's suicide.
8.3. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh, reported
in AIR 2001 SC 383, this Court has analysed different
meanings of "instigation". The relevant para of the said
judgment is reproduced herein:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do "an act".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. 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 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."
8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by
this Court in M.Mohan vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238, as
under:
"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010)
3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this
aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the
dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and
"goading". The Court opined that there should be
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern
is different from the others. Each person has his own
idea of selfesteem and selfrespect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in
dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided
on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44. 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.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of
the cases decided by this Court are 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 this
act must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in
order to bring a case under Section 106 IPC were also
discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. West Bengal AIR
2010 SC 512, in the following paragraphs:
"12. 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 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.
13. 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 IPC."
8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the
instant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, there
seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord
between the deceased and the appellant and her
subsequent death by burning herself. The appellant has not
committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in
the commission of suicide by the deceased."
15. By referring the decision of Ramesh Kumar V. State of
Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that " 'instigate' means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or
encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of 'instigation', it
is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or
that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Where the accused by his act or
omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation
that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit
suicide, then 'instigation' may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of
anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be 'instigation'."
16. In the light of the above said principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, it is well settled that to attract the provisions
what is to be seen is that the accused have actually instigated or
aided to the victim in committing suicide. There must be direct or
indirect inducement to the commission of the suicide and the
accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of
suicide.
17. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case,
and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that the allegation
against the present applicant is only to the extent of inducing the
husband of the deceased to ill treat. Admittedly, no specific
instances are narrated either by the informant or by any other
relatives. The very first clause of Section 107 of the Indian Penal
Code, lays down that a person who abets doing of a thing is a
person who instigates any person to do that thing. Therefore,
instigation to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a
person with an abetment. Even in a case where a victim commits
suicide which may be a result of a cruelty meted out to her. The
Courts have always said that the discord and differences in
domestic life are quite common in society and that the commission
of certain offence largely depends upon the mental stress of the
victim. Surely, until and unless some guilty intentions on the part of
the accused are established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict
him for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
While dealing with the situation on the basis of the facts before the
Hon'ble Apex Court, it is held that the accused apparently has
simply refused to marry the deceased, and thus, even assuming
there was a love between the parties, it is only a case of broken
relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to
commit suicide.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court further refers the judgment of
Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported
in (2009) 16 SCC 605, wherein, it is observed that to constitute
'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite,
urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or
'urging forward'. This Court summed up and laid down the
constituents of 'abetment' as follows :
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct
which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased
reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds,
words or wilful omission or conduct to make the
deceased move forward more quickly in a forward
direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge
or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while
acting in the manner noted above.
19. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case
and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that the deceased and
the present applicant were in a relationship. The present applicant
is the sister-in-law of the deceased. They lived together and only
allegation against her levelled by the informant is that she used to
instigate her husband, however, in what nature that instigation was
there, no such material is collected during the investigation, except
the bare words. Absolutely there is no material to show that the
present applicant has instigated or induced the other co-accused to
ill treat the deceased. A plain reading of Sections 107, 108 and 306
of Indian Penal Code and applying it to the undisputed facts of the
present case, indicates that none of the ingredients are attracted to
the case in hand. The material appears to be insufficient for
subjecting the applicant to trial. On the basis of the nature of the
evidence on record, it cannot be said that the material is sufficient
for the prosecution to establish the charge against the applicant.
In such circumstances, subjecting the applicant to trial, on the basis
of the above said evidence would not only be a mere formality but
also the abuse of process of law.
20. In this view of the matter, the application deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
i) The application is allowed.
ii) The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.
0205/2019, registered by non-applicant No.1 - Police Station
Khamgaon, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 306,
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and consequent
proceeding arising out of the same bearing Special Session Trial
Case No. 146/2019, pending before the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, are hereby quashed and set aside to
the extent of the present applicant.
21. The application is disposed of in the above said terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
