[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Hemlata W/O Arun Raut vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Rajapeth ... on 27 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4976-DB
1 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 580 OF 2022
Smt. Hemlata w/o Arun Raut,
Aged about 49 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Atharva Apartment, Near
Swagat Hotel, Bypass Road, Camp
Amravati, C/o. Shri Pramod
Kalmegh, Saket Housing Society,
Vidyut Nagar, Walgaon Road,
Amravati. APPLICANT
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Thr. its Police Station Officer, Police
Station, Rajapeth, Amravati, Taluka
and District Amravati. NON-APPLICANT
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. Digvijay Singh,
Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, PP a/b Mr. N.H. Joshi, APP for the
Non-applicant/State.
Mr. U.P. Dable, Advocate to assist the prosecution.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 16th MARCH, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 27th MARCH, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the respective parties.
3. The present Application is preferred by the
Applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for quashing of the First Information Report ("FIR" for short) in
connection with Crime No.740/2019 registered with Police
Station Rajapeth, District Amravati for the offence punishable
under Sections 306, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"
for short) and consequent proceeding arising out of the same
bearing Sessions Trial No.162/2021.
4. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of
the present Application are as under:
4(i). Deceased Arun Raut was the husband of the present
Applicant. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.12.1996. After
marriage the present Applicant resumed the cohabitation at the
house of the Complainant, who is her father-in-law. As per the
allegations, at the time of marriage the present Applicant was
3 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
graduate and also completed D-Pharm Degree. After marriage
she has completed her further education as MA-B.Ed and was
also serving as a Teacher.
4(ii). It is alleged that, though the Complainant and other
family members were treating her with love and affection but
she was abusing them as well as assaulting the deceased who
was her husband. She was raising quarrel on trifle issue and left
the matrimonial house and was residing at her parents house.
She used to threatened them that she would commit suicide by
mentioning their names and will implicate them in the crime.
They were under expectation that some day her behaviour will
change, and therefore, they have tolerated her misbehaviour.
Thereafter she developed illicit relationship with one person
who was residing at Nashik. On 15.06.2018, she left the house,
therefore they have filed a missing report and subsequently they
came to know that she went at Nashik to meet her paramour.
Thereafter she again returned back. She was demanding money
from his son. Therefore, on 26.11.2019 the son of the
Complainant was under pressure and was not communicating
with anybody and at about 01.30 to 02.00 p.m the Complainant
4 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
received message that the deceased has jumped in front of the
train and succumbed to the death. On the basis of the said
report Police have registered the crime against the present
Applicant.
4(iii). After registration of the crime the Investigating
Officer has visited the alleged spot of incident, drawn the
inquest panchnama as well as spot panchnama. During inquest
panchnama, suicide note from the person of the deceased was
seized. During investigation the statement of the deceased
which was recorded in another crime which was registered on
the basis of the report lodged by the present Applicant was also
collected and included in the investigation papers. After
completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted
against the present Applicant.
5. Heard Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the
Applicant, who submitted that the incident was occurred on
26.11.2019, whereas the FIR was lodged on 02.12.2019. The
marriage between the present Applicant and the deceased was a
love marriage. He invited my attention towards the fact that,
the present Applicant has lodged the report against the
5 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
deceased and other family members as she was subjected for the
illtreatment by the Complainant and other family members,
wherein she has specifically alleged as to the illtreatment and
discord between her and her husband. The statement of the
deceased was also recorded in the said crime. Thus, he
submitted that, the relationship between the deceased and the
present Applicant were not cordial, and therefore, this FIR came
to be lodged afterthought only to implicate the present
Applicant falsely. He further submitted that, the FIR was lodged
by the present Applicant against the Complainant and other
relatives on 11.07.2018 and thereafter after one year
approximately the alleged incident has happened. Thus, there is
no proximity as far as the abetment at the hands of the present
Applicant is concerned. Thus, he submitted that, merely because
the deceased has committed suicide and by taking disadvantage
of the said fact as the relationship between the deceased and
the present Applicant was not cordial, she is implicated.
6. In support of his contention he placed reliance on
the decisions of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2024) 3
SCC 573; Nipun Aneja & Ors., Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024
6 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
SCC OnLine SC 4091 & Criminal Revision Application
No. 74/2025 (Anup Niranjan Dodiya Vs. State of Maharashtra),
decided on 17.07.2025.
7. Per contra, Mr. Chauhan, learned PP strongly
opposed the said contention and submitted that, it was the
present Applicant who created certain circumstances before the
deceased, and therefore, there was no alternative before the
deceased but to commit suicide. The deceased felt that, there
was no alternative or option but to take his life because of the
behaviour of the present Applicant, which constitutes mens rea
at the instance of the present Applicant. He invited my attention
towards the various statements as well as the fact of filing of the
suit by the Complainant against the deceased and the present
Applicant. Thereafter some noting which is noted by the
deceased as well as the present Applicant and submitted that
the relationship was so strained which caused mental
disturbance to the deceased. The statement of the sister of the
deceased shows the state of mind of the deceased which
resulted into the death of the deceased. Thus, he submitted that,
the present Applicant was not behaving properly since her
7 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
marriage and was abusing and assaulting her husband, which
constrained the Complainant who is the father-in-law to
institute the suit against the present Applicant and her husband.
The present Applicant developed illicit relations with some
person at Nashik and one day she left the house of the
Complainant, due to which the deceased has lodged missing
report. Subsequently, she again joined the company of the
deceased and Complainant but her behaviour was not changed
and she used to threatened the deceased which resulted into the
frustration of the deceased, and therefore, he felt that there is
no alternative before him but to commit suicide and thereby he
committed suicide.
8. In support of his contention he placed reliance on
the judgment of this Court in Criminal Application (APL) No.
1308/2023 (Santosh Haribhau Bharne & Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr.), decided on 19.12.2025; Amit Kapoor Vs.
Ramesh Chander & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 460 ; Sanju Alias Sanjay
Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 ; Mahendra
K.C. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2022) SCC 129.
8 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
9. Mr. Dable, learned Counsel also supported the
contention of the learned PP.
10. Before entering into the merits of the case it is
necessary to see the consideration which requires to be
considered for deciding the Application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR registered under Section 306 of
IPC (108 of BNS, 2023).
11. 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.
Classification of offence. - The offence under this section is
cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by
Court of Session."
12. 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-
9 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
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."
13. Section 108 of IPC 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
10 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
(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
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.
11 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
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."
14. It is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Mahendra K.C. (supra) relied by the learned PP, wherein it is
held that the essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to
do a thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or
illegal omission. 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
12 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence.
Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation.
15. It is further held that, where the accused by his acts
or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances
that the deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other
words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of
suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (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. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the
necessary concomitant of instigation.
13 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
16. Section 306 of IPC 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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
14 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
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.
20. 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
15 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
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.
16 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
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."
21. 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
17 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
committed suicide and the suicide was attributed by the
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."
22. 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. In order
to bring out an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
18 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
Code specific abetment as contemplated by Section 306 of 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.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ramesh Kumar
Vs. Chattisgarh, supra relied upon by learned counsel for the
applicant, in para No.20 has examined different meaning of
'instigation', which reads as, '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
19 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to
be 'instigation'.
24. 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.
25. 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
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.
20 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
26. Applying the above principles to the facts of the
present case even accepting the case as it is it reveals that the
present Applicant and the deceased were husband and wife.
There was matrimonial discord between them. From the recitals
of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses it reveals that the
deceased has filed a report against the present Applicant prior
to the incident on 16.06.2018 contending that there is
difference of opinion between them and when they were
communicating with each other or discussing any issue the
present Applicant shouts, abuses and threatens him. Sometime
she shows readiness to stay alongwith him, subsequently
otherwise threatens him to keep him in jail. She was also
suspecting his character.
27. Similarly, the present Applicant has also filed a
complaint against the deceased and other relatives contending
that as she could not conceive after the marriage she was
subjected for illtreatment and the deceased expressed that he
dislikes her, and therefore, he wants to obtain the divorce from
her. As she was not ready to give the divorce to him and it
affects his mental condition. She further contended in the said
21 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
complaint that, since last five years i.e. from 16.06.2018 she
subjected for the said harassment. Since last two months the
deceased is not sharing the bed room with her and he has
obtained another room on rent, where he goes for sleeping. He
was also asking her not to raise any questions. Thus, it is
apparent that, the deceased as well as the present Applicant
both have lodged the report against each other alleging the
illtreatment by them to each other. The statement of the sister of
the deceased is also recorded. The said statement reflects that
the deceased disclosed to her that the Applicant is raising
suspicion on his character.
28. Thus, the nature of the dispute between the
Applicant and the deceased was matrimonial in nature as there
was discord between them due to the difference of opinion.
After the deceased has committed suicide, the suicide note was
found with him. The said suicide note nowhere reflects that he
has committed suicide due to the abetment at the hands of the
present Applicant. The said suicide note is reproduced for ready
reference:
22 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
Thus, on perusal of the said suicide note, it reveals
that the deceased has mentioned that he is undergoing some
torture, and therefore, he is committing suicide and nobody is
responsible for the said suicide.
29. Learned PP has pointed out from some notings
which are maintained by the present Applicant and submitted
that, the Applicant was desiring to have control over her
husband, which is reflected from the said notes which affected
the mental health of the deceased, and therefore, the deceased
23 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
has committed suicide. Similarly, some notes in the handwriting
of the deceased was also seized during the investigation. The
said notes maintained by the Applicant as well as by the
deceased shows that, out of matrimonial dispute and difference
of opinion both have disclosed about illtreatment or torture
against each other.
30. As per the prosecution case, there was a constant
harassment which was continued over a long period, and
therefore, the deceased has committed suicide. The abetment
involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on
the part of the accused, in aiding or instigating or abetting the
deceased to commit suicide a conviction cannot be sustained.
What comes out essentially from the various decisions that if
there is allegations of constant harassment, continued over a
long period, to bring in the ingredients of Sections 306 read
with Section 107 of IPC still there has to be a proximate prior
act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of
such continuous harassment or the extreme act on the part of
the others of taking ones life. Merely because the victim was
24 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
continuously harassed and at one point he or she succumbed to
the extreme act of taking his or her life cannot by itself result in
finding a positive instigation constituting the abetment. Mens
rea cannot be ascertained only by the circumstance that the
deceased has committed suicide as nobody knows what goes on
in the mind of the victim. The victim may have felt that there
was no alternative or option but to take his life because of what
another person did or said which cannot lead to a finding mens
rea and resultant abetment on that other person.
31. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and
purpose of alleged perpetrator from the conscious acts or words
and the attending circumstances which in all probability would
lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and
whether he or she intended by his or her action to at least
possibly drive the victim to commit suicide is the sure test.
Whether there was a thought of goading the victim to commit
suicide occurred in the minds of the applicant or whether it can
be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case
is the true test of mens rea would depend upon the facts of each
case. Unless there is a conscious deliberate intention to drive the
25 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
another person to take the life, there cannot be a finding of
abetment under Section 306 of IPC.
32. In the case in hand, due to matrimonial dispute
between the Applicant and the deceased both have lodged the
complaint against each other and both have suspected the
character of each other. As far as the summary of the
charge-sheet and statements recorded even if taken into
consideration there is no single incident apparent from which it
can be said that, the Applicant has created such circumstances
before the deceased due to which the deceased has no
alternative but to commit suicide, and therefore, the deceased
has committed suicide. On the contrary, the investigation papers
which are collected during the investigation shows that the
deceased as well as the present Applicant both have alleged
against each other as to the torture at the hands of each other.
They both have suspected the character of each other and they
both have filed complaints against each other. However, there is
no proof of direct or indirect acts of the present Applicant which
would constitute incitement which drive the deceased to
commit suicide. Mere the allegation of harassment without
26 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled
the deceased to commit suicide then only the offence under
Section 306 of IPC said to be established. The aspect regarding
the ingredients of the offence to constitute the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC is considered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in various decision.
33. Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the
Applicant as well as Mr. Chouhan, learned PP both have placed
reliance on Nipun Aneja & Ors., (supra), wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed that, the ordinary dictionary meaning
of the word 'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite
someone to do something. It is further held that, the scope and
ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306
IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of
S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., (2010) 12 SCC
190, it was observed as under:-
"25. 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. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of
the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in
27 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
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 that act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide."
18. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its
Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the
necessary ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC in detail,
observed as under:-
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the
intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the
deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused,
however, insulting the deceased by using abusive
language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment
of suicide. There should be evidence capable of
suggesting that the accused intended by such act to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the
ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit
suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted
under Section 306 IPC ."
19. This Court in Ude singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17
SCC 301, held that in order to convict an accused under
Section 306 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a
particular crime must be visible with regard to determining
the culpability. It was observed as under:-
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. It could
hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of
abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving
multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would
be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the
act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In
the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of
the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there be such action on the part of the accused
28 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
which compels the person to commit suicide; and
such an offending action ought to be proximate to
the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted
in the commission of suicide by another or not, could
only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of
each case."
34. Thus, for the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration
would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the
act of suicide. As explained and reiterated repeatedly in various
decisions if the person who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person
to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty
of abetment of suicide. But, if the accused by his acts and by his
continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the
deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide,
the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 of IPC.
If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem
and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim
to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment
of suicide.
29 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
35. Thus, the test that the Court should adopt in this
type 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. Over a period of time, the trend of the
Courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only
after a full- fledged trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that
such understanding on the part of the Courts is wrong.
36. In the light of the well settled principles and by
applying the same to the facts of the present case and even
accepting the case as it is it reveals that there was matrimonial
dispute between the deceased and accused. Both have made an
allegation against each other as to the harassment. However, the
investigation papers nowhere shows that the present Applicant
has created such circumstances before the deceased that the
deceased was not having any alternative but to commit suicide.
On the contrary, it shows that both have made allegation against
each other regarding illicit relations with somebody else, and
therefore, the same would not be sufficient to gather that the
deceased has committed suicide.
30 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
37. The matrimonial discord is common in domestic life.
Suicide cannot be attributed to any of the spouse, merely
because there is a matrimonial dispute. It cannot be held that
due to the abetment the deceased has committed suicide. As far
as the present case is concerned, at the most it can be said that,
the Applicant may be the reason for the frustration of the
deceased but such type of the discord and differences which are
common in domestic life in the society and until and unless
some guilty intentions are there it is ordinarily not possible to
show that the present Applicant is responsible for the death of
the deceased. The suicide note also has not attributed any such
mens rea to the present Applicant. Even if any words uttered by
any of the spouse during the fit of anger also would not
sufficient to constitute the abetment at the hands of the
accused. Here in the present case, due to the matrimonial
dispute the deceased has committed suicide. No other reason
come forward to show that the deceased was not having any
other option, and therefore, he has committed suicide. In view
of that, the Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following order.
31 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
ORDER
i. Criminal Application is allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 740/2019 registered with Police Station
Rajapeth, District Amravati for the offence
punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding
arising out of the same bearing Sessions Trial
No.162/2021, are hereby quashed and set aside to
the extent of the present Applicant.
38. 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: 30/03/2026 10:55:10
