Vivek S/O Bhaiyyaji Totewar And 5 Others vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Shirpur Tq.Wani ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1481 Bom

Bombay High Court

Vivek S/O Bhaiyyaji Totewar And 5 Others vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Shirpur Tq.Wani ... on 10 February, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:2302-DB

                                            1               25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                       CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 231 OF 2021

                  1. Vivek S/o Bhaiyyaji Totewar,
                     Aged about 39 yrs., Occ. Journalist,
                     R/o Rampura Ward, Tal. Wani,
                     Distrcit Yavatmal.

                  2. Dhiraj @ Sachin Ganesh Bhoyar,
                     Aged about 29 yrs.,
                     Occ. Social Service,
                     R/o Guruvarya Colony Ward No.1,
                     Near Ashok Bajar Yavatmal Road,
                     Wani, District Yavatmal.

                  3. Vikas S/o Ganpat Mohurle,
                     Aged about 37 yrs., Occ. Labour,
                     R/o Village Khedi, Taluka Saoli,
                     District Chandrapur.
                  4. Vijay S/o Guddi Korewar,
                     Aged about 42 yrs.,
                     Occ. Agriculturist,
                     R/o Village Khedi, Taluka Saoli,
                     District Chandrapur.

                  5. Nitesh S/o Namdeo Yenugar,
                     Aged about 32 yrs., Occ. Labour,
                     R/o Village Khedi, Taluka Saoli,
                     District Chandrapur.

                  6. Maroti S/o Pochuji Kankalwar,
                     Aged about 43 yrs.,
                     Occ. Agriculturist/Labour,
                     R/o Village Khedi, Taluka Saoli,
                     District Chandrapur.             APPLICANTS
                               2              25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt




       Versus
 1. The State of Maharashtra,
    Through Police Station Officer,
    Shirpur Police Station, Taluka Wani,
    District Yavatmal.
 2. Ninad S/o Prabhakar Bhoyar,
    Aged about 44 yrs., Occ.Agriculturist
    R/o Ward No.1 Kanakwadi, Taluka
    Wani, District Yavatmal.              NON-APPLICANTS

-----------------------------------------------
Mr. N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
-----------------------------------------------

                  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 Applicants and learned APP for the

Non-applicant No.1/State.

3. Though the Non-applicant No.2 is served non

appears for the Non-applicant No.2.

3 25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt

4. 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.498/2020 registered with Police Station Shirpur,

District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Section 306

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC")

and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC

No. 193/2022.

5. The Applicants are arraigned as an accused on the

basis of a report lodged by the Non-applicant No.2/Ninand

Bhoyar who is the son of the deceased alleging that the

deceased as committed suicide, and therefore, he was admitted

into the hospital at Nagpur where he was died on 05.09.2020.

Initially Marg was registered vide No.45/2020 and enquiry was

started. During the enquiry it revealed that one Vilas Mohurle

who was working as a labour with deceased Prabhakar Bhoyar

was succumbed to injury due to electric shock in the field, and

therefore, the case was registered vide AD Case No. 38/2020.

The Applicants who are the journalist and the Applicant No. 2

Dhiraj Bhoyar is a Mediator in between deceased Prabhakar and 4 25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt

son of deceased Vilas Mohurle and Applicant Nos. 3 to 6 are

relatives of deceased Vilas Mohurle. It is alleged that, the son of

deceased Vilas Mohurle or his family members have no

grievances in respect of death of Vilas Mohurle but

the present Applicants were pressurizing deceased Prabhakar

Bhoyar, and therefore, due to their pressure he

committed suicide. It is further alleged that, during AD Enquiry

the suicide note came to be seized which supports the

contention of the Non-applicant No.2. On the basis of the said

report Police have registered the crime against the present

Applicants.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants who

submitted that, even considering the allegations as it is at its

face value no offence is made out against the present Applicants

as it nowhere reflects that there was any instigation to the

deceased to commit suicide. He submits that, the entire

allegations levelled against the present Applicants that they

were pressurizing the deceased, however the suicide note

nowhere reflects that it was the present Applicants who were

insisting the deceased to pay the amount, and therefore, he 5 25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt

committed suicide. Only the suicide note shows that he has

already paid the amount in respect of Vilas Mohurle and then

also the relatives of Vilas Mohurle were pressurizing him, and

therefore, he committed suicide. He submitted that, the

statements of various witnesses are also recorded during the

investigation which suggests that the deceased was in debt, and

therefore, as he was unable to pay the amount of various

persons as well as the society, and therefore, he committed

suicide. As far as the present Applicants are concerned, no

prima facie case is made out against them. In view of that, the

continuation of the proceeding would be an abuse of the

process of law. In view of that, he prayed for quashing of the

FIR.

7. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said

contentions and submitted that, considering the statement of

Non-applicant No.2/Informant as well as various statements of

witnesses which shows that the relatives of deceased Vilas

Mohurle and the present Applicants who are the journalist

insisting the deceased to pay the amount towards the

compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Vilas Mohurle, 6 25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt

and therefore, he committed suicide. In view of that, the

Application deserves to be rejected.

8. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the

entire investigation papers it reveals that the entire issue

revolves around whether the deceased has committed suicide

due to the ill-treatment at the hands of the present Applicants or

there was any other reason behind his committal of suicide or

whether demanding of money or demanding of compensation

would sufficient to show that the Applicants have abeted the

deceased to commit suicide.

9. 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.

10. 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.

7 25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt

Classification of offence. - The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Court of Session."

11. 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."

12. Section 108 of IPC reads thus:

8 25.APL.231-2021.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 9 25.APL.231-2021.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."

13. Section 306 of IPC talks about abetment of suicide

and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of 10 25.APL.231-2021.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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 11 25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt

constitute abetment, there must be direct incitement to do

culpable act.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ramesh Kumar

Vs. Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383, wherein it is

observed that:

"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."

18. In the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh, (2017) 7 SCC 780, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court

has held as under:

"Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of 12 25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt

instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life."

19. Thus, Section 306 of IPC has two basic ingredients

(1) an act of suicide by one person and (2) by abetment to the

said act by another person in order to sustain a charge under

Section 306 of IPC, it must be necessary to prove that the

accused persons had contributed to suicide by the deceased by

some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or

involvement, one of three conditions outlined in Section 107 of

IPC has to be satisfied.

20. 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 him to suicide will not be

sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide. A fetal

impulse or ill-fated thoughts of the suicide, however

unfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot fray the fabric of the

provision contained in Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In

order to bring out an offence under Section 306 of the Indian

Penal Code specific abetment as contemplated by Section 306 of 13 25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt

the Indian Penal Code on the part of the accused with an

intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a

result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused

to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide

is a must for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal

Code.

21. Thus, combine reading of Sections 306, 107, and

108 of IPC, shows the requirement is a positive act on the part

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.

22. In the light of the above requirements if the suicide

note of the deceased is taken into consideration which is

reproduced for the purpose of reference:-

"eh izHkkdj ukjk;.k Hkks;j vkt 24.8.20 jksth vkRegR;k djr vkgks A Jh foykl Ekksgjys ;kaps e`R;w eqGs eh fopfyr >kyks r'kkrp o.kh ;sFkhy cgqxq.kh P;k eksckbZy vWi oj o`Rrokfguhus pqdhph ekfgrh nsmu ekÖ;koj ncko vk.kykA

Jh foykl eksgjys ;kauk osGksosGh eh ;kaps okf"kZd lkat nkjh ps iSls fnys vlwu R;kaP;kdMs fg'kksc xq<hikMok 2020 yk iw.kZ dsysyk vkgsA 14 25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt

vls vlrkuk R;kaP;k ifjokjkrhy ukrsokbZd o brjkaph tknk iSls ns.;kdjrk ncko-------------------------------------------------------A

Jh foykl eksgjys ;kapk e`R;w bysfDVªd [kkackpk rkj rqVY;keqGs >kysyk A R;kapk ekÖ;koj vkG vk.kwu vkfFkZd Qk;nk d:u ?ks.;kpk iz;Ru lq: vkgsA Jh foosd rksVsokj o lfpu Hkks;j ;kaph xSjlet iljfo.;kr izeq[k Hkwfedk vkgs A ekÖ;kdMs jaxukFk lkslk;Vh ps :23]00]000@&¼:i;s rsohl yk[k ½ dtZ vkgs A

lgh ¼vLi"V½ Lok{kjh ¼vLi"V½

¼izHkkdj ukjk.k Hkks;j½ "

23. It nowhere discloses that what type of abetment at

the hands of the present Applicants and it also nowhere states

that it was the present Applicants who were insisting him to

give the money or pressurizing him, and therefore, he has

committed suicide.

24. Thus, 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 15 25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt

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.

25. Applying the above principles to the facts of the

present case and even accepting the case as it is it reveals that

the suicide note nowhere reflects the names of the present

Applicants, it nowhere reflects the act of the present Applicants

and it nowhere reflects that there was no alternate before the

deceased but to commit the suicide and the circumstances are

such which are created by the present Applicants, and therefore,

he has committed suicide. Thus, in the absence of any prima

facie case against the present Applicants, the continuation of the

criminal proceeding against them would be an abuse of the

process of law. In view of that, the Application deserves to be

allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i. Criminal Application is allowed.

ii. The First Information Report in connection with 16 25.APL.231-2021.JUDGMENT.odt

Crime No. 498/2020 registered with Police Station Shirpur, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No. 193/2022, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present Applicants.

26. 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 18:51:50