[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shankar S/O Kashinath Hedau vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 24 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4894-DB
50apl829.2020.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 829 OF 2020
APPLICANT :- Shankar s/o Kashinath Hedau,
Aged about 55 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Sant Tukdoji Ward, Aadarsha
Nagar, Hinganghat, Tq. Hinganghat,
District Wardha.
..VERSUS..
NON- :- 1) The State of Maharashtra,
APPLICANTS through Police Station Officer,
Hinganghat, Tq. Hinganghat,
District - Wardha.
2) Kavit Buddhagosh Maske,
Aged about 45 years, R/o Mata
Mandir Ward, Hinganghat, Tq.
Hinganghat, District Wardha.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Manoj Prabhudas Kariya, counsel for applicant.
Mr. A.M.Joshi, APP for non-applicant/State.
Mr. Ranjeet D. Bhuibhar, counsel for non-applicant No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATE : 24/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
counsel for the applicant, learned APP for non-applicant/State
and learned counsel for non-applicant No.2.
3. The present application is preferred by the applicant
for quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No. 536 of
2020 registered with Police Station Hinganghat, Tq.
Hinganghat, District Wardha, for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. The crime was registered on the basis of a report
lodged by the non-applicant No.2. The deceased, Buddhagosh
Kisanrao Maske, aged about 45 years, was working as a Gram
Sevak with Gram Panchayat Kadajana, Tah. Hinganghat.
While in service, he has committed misappropriation of public
funds amounting to Rs. 2,04,000/-. In a departmental inquiry,
he was charge-sheeted on 18 counts. The deceased was found
guilty after due inquiry and consequently he was suspended,
and thereafter terminated from service vide order dated
19/07/2019 by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad
Wardha. Therefore, the deceased was under mental and
financial stress. On 16/09/2020, he committed suicide by
hanging himself from railing of the staircase. The police found
suicide note of the deceased person. It is alleged in the said
suicide note the deceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste
community, the present applicant harassed him, abused him,
humiliated him, and due to the mental harassment caused to
the deceased by the present applicant, he committed suicide.
On the basis of the said report, police have registered the
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
crime against present applicant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who
submitted that the present applicant is serving as an
Extension Officer and appeared as a witness in the
departmental inquiry against the deceased. Therefore, the
deceased was having grudge against him. He committed
suicide due to the termination from the service, but to
implicate the present applicant falsely, he has written a
suicide note, wherein the name of the present applicant is
mentioned. He submitted that, even accepting the allegations
as it is, no prima-facie case is made out, as there is no nexus
or proximity between the abetment of suicide and commission
of suicide by the deceased.
6. He further submitted that the suicide note only
shows that the present applicant is responsible for the death
of the deceased. However, the nature of the abetment is
nowhere mentioned in the said suicide note. The entire
investigation has been carried out by the investigating agency,
but the charge-sheet has yet not been filed. He submitted that
even the recitals of the FIR nowhere disclose what nature of
the abetment was at the hands of the present applicant and
therefore, there was no alternative before the deceased but to
commit suicide. Thus, he submitted that, even accepting the
allegations as it is, no prima-facie case is made out and hence,
the application deserves to be allowed.
7. Leaned APP strongly opposed the said contention
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
and submitted that a specific sentence is mentioned in the
suicide note which is shows that the present applicant is
responsible for the death of the deceased, which is sufficient
at this stage. In view of that, the application deserves to be
rejected.
8. Leaned counsel for the complainant also endorsed
the same contentions and submitted that the recitals of the
FIR and the suicide note consistently shows the involvement
of the present applicant. Due to the abetment at the hands of
the present applicant, the deceased felt humiliated and
therefore, he committed suicide. Hence, the application
deserves to be rejected.
9. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the
recitals of the FIR, it reveals that present applicant and the
deceased were serving in the same department. There was an
allegation of misappropriation of the amount against the
deceased, and the present applicant appeared as a witness in
the said departmental inquiry. The said departmental inquiry
was decided against the deceased, he was terminated from
the service, and thereafter he has committed suicide. The
suicide note admittedly shows the name of the present
applicant, stating that the present applicant is responsible for
his death. The entire suicide note nowhere shows what type
of the abetment was at the hands of the present applicant,
and therefore, the deceased has no alternative but to commit
suicide. Even accepting the allegations as it is, the nature of
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
the abetment at the hands of the present applicant nowhere
reflects either from the recitals of the FIR or from the recitals
of the suicide note.
10. Before entering into merits of the case, it is
necessary to see what are consideration as far as the offence
under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned.
11. 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.
12. 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
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
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 willful
misrepresentation, or by willful 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, willfully represents to A that
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.
13. Section 108 of the Indian Penal reads thus:
rkn
50apl829.2020.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.
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
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,
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
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
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
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.
14. 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.
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
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 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.
17. In the case of Prabhu vs. The State represented by
the Inspector of Police and anr, 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
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
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."
rkn
50apl829.2020.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 self-esteem and self-respect.
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
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
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
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
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."
18. In the light of above said principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, it is well settled that to attract the
provisions what is to be shown is that the accused have
actually instigated or aided to the victim in 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.
19. By applying the above principles to facts of the
present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
that allegations against the present applicant that he has
tortured, harassed, humiliated and insulted the deceased and
therefore, deceased has committed suicide. Sections 306 and
107 are extensively states about abetment of suicide. The
crucial word under Section 306 IPC is 'abets'. 'Abetment' is
defined in Section 107 of IPC. As per Section 107 IPC, a
person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he instigates
any person to do that thing or if he encourages with one or
more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that
thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission
doing of that thing. There are two explanations to Section
107. As per Explanation 1, even if a person by way of willful
misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact which he
is otherwise 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. Explanation 2 clarifies that
whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission
of an act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the
act, is said to aid the doing of that act."
20. 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
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
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 an 'instigation'."
21. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case, and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals
that the deceased was terminated from the service due to the
allegations of misappropriation, and thereafter he has
committed suicide. Even accepting the suicide note as it is,
nowhere it reveals that torture or the abetment was to such
an extent that the deceased had no alternative before him to
commit suicide. Even accepting the allegation as it is, no
abetment is made out from the said allegations.
22. A plain reading of Sections 107, 108, and 306 of the
Indian Penal Code, and applying it to the undisputed facts of
the present case, indicates that none of ingredients are
attracted to the case in hand. The material appears to be
insufficient for subjecting the applicant for trial. In view of
that, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
a] The criminal Application is allowed.
b] The FIR in connection with Crime
rkn
50apl829.2020.odt
No. 536 of 2020 registered with Police Station
Hinganghat, Tq. Hinganghat, District Wardha
for the offence punishable under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is hereby quashed
and set aside to the extent of the present
applicant.
23. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
rkn
