[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajesh S/O Narayan Suryavanshi And 3 ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ... on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2281-DB
1 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 949 OF 2021
1. Rajesh S/o Narayan Suryavanshi,
Aged 31 yrs., Occ: Farmer,
R/o: Ward No. 3, Takalghat, Nagpur,
Maharashtra 441122.
2. Lata W/o Narayan Suryavanshi,
Aged 65 yrs., Occ: Homemaker,
R/o: Ward No. 3, Takalghat, Nagpur,
Maharashtra 441122.
3. Madhuri W/o Shrikant Ladse,
Aged about 28 yrs., Occ.Homemaker,
R/o Behind Nag Mandir, Shivaji
Nagar, Bhadravati, Bhadrawati,
Chandrapur, Maharashtra- 442902.
4. Shrikant s/o Hanuman Ladse,
Aged about 35 yrs. Occ.:,
R/o Behind Nag Mandir, Shivaji
Nagar, Bhadravati, Bhadrawati,
Chandrapur, Maharashtra-442902. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through
P.S.O. PS MIDC Buttibori, Nagpur.
2. Sau. Sharda Ashok Chouhan,
R/o Shivaji Ward Ballarshah,
Ballarshah, Chandrapur,
Maharashtra. NON-APPLICANTS
2 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. A.S Band, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
Ms. S.T. Godbole, Advocate (Appointed) for the Non-applicant
No.2.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 10th FEBRUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the respective parties.
3. The present Application is preferred by the
Applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.177/2021 registered with Police Station MIDC,
Buttibori Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections
498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short "IPC") and consequent proceeding arising out of the same
bearing Sessions Case No. 148/2024.
3 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
4. The crime is registered on the basis of the report
lodged by the Non-applicant No.2/Sau. Sharda Ashok Chouhan
the mother of the deceased on an allegation that the marriage
of her daughter was performed with the Applicant No.1 on
30.04.2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage she
resumed the cohabitation at the house of the present Applicants
but she was illtreated on account of nothing was given in the
marriage as the marriage was performed during the Covid
period. It is alleged that, she was taunted on that count as well
as her brother-in-law who is the husband of sister of her
husband was also taunting her and insisting her that she has not
brought anything from her parents house and she should bring
that and she has saved the money of her parents by performing
the marriage during the Covid period. Being she was fed up
with the continuous ill-treatment at the hands of the present
Applicants, she has committed suicide on 13.07.2021 by
hanging herself. On the basis of the said report Police have
registered the crime against the present Applicants. After
registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer has recorded
the various statements of the witnesses and after completion of
4 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the present
Applicants.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants who
submitted that, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that
the Applicants have abeted her to commit suicide and there was
no alternate before her but to commit suicide, and therefore,
she committed suicide. He submitted that, there is no proximity
as far as the abetment and the act of suicide is concerned. He
further invited my attention towards the provisions of Sections
107, 108 of IPC and submitted that in the light of the said
provisions no offence is made out against the present Applicants
to infer that due to the abetment at the hands of the present
Applicants, the deceased has committed suicide. For all above
these grounds, he submitted that the Application deserves to be
allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for the
Non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed the said contentions and
submitted that, there was continuous harassment as the
marriage was performed during the Covid period, and therefore,
she was taunted that she has saved the money of her parents by
5 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
not incurring the expenses. Being fed up with the ill-treatment,
she has committed suicide. In view of that, the Application
deserves to be rejected.
7. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
recitals of the FIR, the question remains whether such types of
allegations are sufficient to say that the Applicants have abeted
her to commit suicide. There is no dispute that, the marriage
between the Applicant No.1 and the deceased was performed on
30.04.2021 and she has committed suicide on 13.07.2021 i.e.
within three months of marriage.
8. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is
necessary to see what are the considerations as far as the
offence under Section 306 of IPC is concerned.
9. Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023) of IPC 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.
6 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
Classification of offence. - The offence under this section is
cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by
Court of Session."
10. Section 107 of IPC (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
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."
11. Section 108 of IPC reads thus:
7 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
"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 dweiling-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
8 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
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
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.
has therefore committed the offence defined in this section
and is liable to the punishment for murder."
12. Section 306 of IPC talks about abetment of suicide
and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of
9 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
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.
13. 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 actions must align with one of
the three criteria detailed in Section 107 of IPC. This means the
accused either encouraged the individual to take their life,
conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide.
14. 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.
15. It is well settled that in order to attract the offence
of 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
10 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
constitute abetment, there must be direct incitement to do
culpable act.
16. In the case of Kamlakar Vs. State of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No.1485/of 2011, decided on 12.10.2023
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the ingredients
of Section 306 of IPC 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. 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."
11 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
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
12 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
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."
17. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State
of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 , the Hon'ble Apex Court extensively
dealt with concept of 'abetment' in the context of the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC. In that case, the allegation
against the accused/appellant therein was that he had abetted
the commission of suicide of his sister's husband one Chander
Bhushan. The facts reveals that there were matrimonial disputes
between sister of the appellant/accused and her husband and in
connection with the said disputes, the appellant had allegedly
threatened and abused Chander Bhushan. Chander Bhushan
committed suicide and the suicide was attributed by the
13 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
prosecution to the quarrel that had taken place between the
appellant and the said Chander Bhushan, a day prior. It was
alleged that the appellant had used abusive language against
said Chander Bhushan and had told him "to go and die". The
appellant, who had been chargesheeted for an offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a
Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
for quashing the proceedings against him, but his Petition was
dismissed by the High Court. While allowing the appeal, the
Hon'ble Apex Court, inter alia, observed as follows:
"Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant
did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not
constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word
'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic
or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of
mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of
instigation."
18. Thus, a direct influence or an oblique impact with
the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the
mind of the deceased and which draw her to suicide will not be
sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide.
19. Thus, combine reading of Sections 306, 107, and
108 of IPC, shows the requirement is a positive act on the part
14 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide and in
the absence of the same, the conviction cannot be sustained.
There has to be a clear intention to commit the offence for being
held liable under Section 306 of IPC.
20. After going through the catena of decisions, it
reveals that test that the Court should adopt in these types of
cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the
materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even
prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the
act, i.e., suicide. To attract the provisions what is to be shown is
that the accused have actually instigated or aided in the victim's
act of committing suicide. There must be direct or indirect
incitement to the commission of 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.
21. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case as far as the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned
against whom the specific allegations are levelled by the
witnesses as well as the recitals of the FIR also shows the same.
As far as the Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, except the
15 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
reference of their names no specific act or overt act is attributed
against them. Moreover, the Applicant No.3 married with
Applicant No.4 and they are residing at Bhadravati Chandrapur
which is approximately 150 k.m. away from Nagpur. Thus, as
far as the role of the Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned,
which is on the basis of general, omnibus and vague allegations,
no prima facie case is made out to show that there was any
mens rea on their part to instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. In view of that, the Application deserves to be
allowed partly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Application is allowed partly.
ii. The prayer of the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 for
quashing of the FIR is hereby rejected.
iii. The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 177/2021 registered with Police Station
MIDC, Buttibori Nagpur 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 Sessions Case
16 29.APL.949-2021.JUDGMENT.odt
No. 148/2024 are hereby quashed and set aside to
the extent of the Applicant No.3/Madhuri W/o
Shrikant Ladse and Applicant No.4./Shrikant s/o
Hanuman Ladse.
iv. Fees of the learned Appointed Counsel be quantified
as per rules.
22. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/02/2026 16:46:32
