Gujarat High Court
Jadav Jayantibhai Narottamdas vs The State Of Gujarat on 11 November, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2272 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
JADAV JAYANTIBHAI NAROTTAMDAS & ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR ROHAN H.RAVAL APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 11/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellants are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 of
the Sessions trial conducted by the Additional
Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Judge, Mahesana,
whereby on 30.11.2006 in Sessions Case
No.91/2006. The appellants came to be convicted
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short 'I.P.C.'). The trial was conducted against
five of the accused under Sections 498A, 306 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
114 of the I.P.C., while the charge framed below
Exh.5 also included Section 511 of I.P.C. The
appellants were sentenced to five years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default
stipulation of undergoing six months simple
imprisonment.
2. As per the complaint Exh.36, which was given
by deceased - Laxmiben wife of Arunbhai Somabhai
Vankar, all the accused, who were residing near
her house earlier had mentally and physically
harassed her and being poor she had not retorted
to them. The mental and physical harassment
continued, which she went on bearing. On
23.03.2006, at about 2:00 in the afternoon, when
deceased was all alone at home, it was alleged
that Jadav Gunvantiben Jayantibhai and her three
sons passed by her house speaking unpalatable
things, inspite of that she had not replied.
2.1 Deceased has further stated in the complaint
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
that since those people were often harassing her
mentally and physically and since she could not
bear the harassment, she had gone in the toilet
of her house, and by pouring kerosene had ignited
herself, and when she started shouting her
daughter Hinaben and the neighbours came there,
even her husband had come to that place, who took
her to Visnagar Government Hospital and for
further treatment, she was taken to Mahesana
Government Hospital. It is stated that she was
severally burned over whole of her body.
2.2 The complaint of the deceased further notes
that she was completely in her senses. The
complaint records that Jadav Jayantibhai
Narottambhai, Gunvantiben Jayantibhai, Jadav
Khodidas Jayantibhai as well as Mehulbhai
Jayantibhai and Ketanbhai Jayantibhai, all
residents of Sudiyawada are her family relatives,
who told her that she was a quarrelsome person of
the family and was spoiling the family. Such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
threats were given to her, which she could not
bear therefore, on her own had poured kerosene
and attempted suicide. She stated that none had
burned her and that she had burnt on her own.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Zubin F.Bharda for the
respondents - accused referring to the impugned
judgment submitted that the accused have been
acquitted under Section 498A of the I.P.C. since
the Trial Court had not found them related to
deceased. Advocate Mr. Bharda stated that the
evidence shows that they are not the near
relatives, nor even any distant relation could be
proved. Mr. Bharda stated that Section 498A
I.P.C. was invoked by the police and since it was
recorded in the complaint that they were distant
relatives, however the same could not been proved
and therefore, learned Trial Court Judge deemed
fit to acquit all the accused under Section 498A
I.P.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Bharda further stated
that the provision of Section 511 I.P.C. came to
be dropped, which as per the record, it was
Investigating Officer, who in his deposition has
stated to have dropped the section.
3.2 Referring to the complaint recorded by
(P.W.9) Investigating Officer - Pravinpuri
Shankerpuri Goswami, statement of deceased
recorded by (P.W.8) Head Constable - Harshadkumar
Gnabhai and the dying declaration recorded by
(P.W.5) Executive Magistrate - Rekhaben
Surendrabhai, learned advocate Mr. Bharda would
submit that all the records are not consistent.
The dying declaration refers to only accused
Jayantibhai Talati, where deceased had thrice in
her statement stated that she had taken the final
step to commit suicide because only of the mental
harassment of Jayanti Talati.
3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Bharda stated that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
deceased has referred to wife of Jayanti Talati
Gunvantiben and three sons named Pinto, Mehul and
Khodiya on the ground that she was subjected to
mental harassment through them and therefore, she
has smashed her forehead and caused self injury
and thereafter had poured kerosene to burn
herself.
3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Bharda submitted that
deceased had very specifically excludes her
husband and parents-in-law stating that they were
not at fault and that only because of harassment
of Jayanti Talati she has burned herself. The
statement recorded by P.W.8 - Head Constable
would suggest that accused Jayanti Narottam, his
wife Gunvantiben, sons - Khodidas, Mehul and
Ketan, referring to all as four of them, were
giving her mental stress and always were creating
dispute by calling her on phone. Her husband from
morning to evening remains out for business. On
that day at about 2 O' Clock in the afternoon all
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
four had mentally harassed her and therefore, she
had burned herself by pouring kerosene.
3.5 Advocate Mr. Bharda contended that the trial
was against five persons while the statement
refers to four, where the names of all five are
mentioned in the statement. Mr. Bharda stated
that it does not become clear as to who were four
out of five mentally harassing deceased. The
statement Exh.43, as submitted by learned
advocate Mr. Bharda, was immediate on point of
time, as according to the witness Head Constable,
he had received the 'Wardhi' from Visnagar Civil
Hospital informing that Laxmiben Vankar got
burned excessively and therefore, on such
'wardhi' he had gone to record the statement. Mr.
Bharda submitted that statement (Exh.43) does not
bear endorsement of the Doctor, and Head
Constable also did not deem it fit to record the
statement with the endorsement of the Doctor. It
is contended by learned advocate Mr. Bharda that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
the statement Exh.43 has to be considered as the
F.I.R., and the complaint produced by the husband
of deceased as Exh.36, would become a statement
of deceased to the I.O.
3.6 It is also contended by learned advocate Mr.
Bharda that deposition of the treating Doctor as
well as the cross-examination of the Executive
Magistrate would prove that deceased was not
mentally and physically fit to give any dying
declaration and her thumb impressions were
forcibly taken on the dying declaration. Mr.
Bharda further stated that deceased could not
read the dying declaration, as she was burned on
the eyes, which becomes clear from deposition of
the Executive Magistrate and thus, stated that no
reliance can be placed on the statements of
deceased.
3.7 Learned advocate Mr. Bharda further stated
that the husband was continuously with the
injured wife and the statements, as recorded
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
appears to be tutored. Mr. Bharda stated that
family were not staying in the exact
neighbourhood. The evidence of the husband would
bring the fact on record that accused No.1 was a
Talati and that the dispute had arisen between
the younger brother of the husband P.W.6 and the
accused No.1 - Jayantibhai Narottambhai with
regard to a plot, where as a Talati accused No.1
had raised an objection in the Panchayat to the
transfer, and further some incident has also been
referred of 17.05.1993, where it has been alleged
that the members of accused family were not
invited in the marriage occasion of younger
brother - Yogesh.
3.8 Referring to the provisions of law and the
ingredients provided under Section 306, learned
advocate Mr. Bharda relying on the judgments of
(i) Ram Pyarey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025
(6) SCC 820], (ii) Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Ors. [2025 SCC OnLine SC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
1725], (iii) Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanai Vs. State
of Karnataka Through SHO Kakati Police [ 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3541], (iv) Ashwinbhai Premjibhai
Vispara and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat [2025 SCC
OnLine Guj. 2871] and Lavjibhai Sukhabhai Gohil
Vs. State of Gujarat [2025 (0) AIJEL-HC 251255],
submitted that mens rea and constant goading with
no option to deceased, but to commit suicide has
to be proved.
3.9 Learned advocate Mr. Bharda submitted that
the proximity to the incident, as alleged could
not be proved in view of the evidence of the
Investigating Officer since the date and time of
the alleged incident of wife of, accused No.1
i.e. accused No.2 and the children i.e. rest of
the accused, having allegedly rebuked deceased
does not get proved, since the children as the
accused were proved to be writing examination,
and even accused No.1 Jayantibhai was at his
place of work. Mr. Bharda further stated that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
prosecution is required to prove the connection
with the incident to consider it as an abetment
for the commission of offence, where the
prosecution is required to prove the instigation
to the extent of goading the deceased with no
other alternative, but to commit suicide.
3.10 Advocate Mr. Bharda further stated that
there is bald allegation in omnibus form of
mental and physical harassment, while how and in
what way deceased was mentally and physically
harassed by the accused could not be proved, and
in absence of any cogent evidence with regard to
harassment or abetment in any form of aiding or
instigating, Mr. Bharda submitted that no
conviction can lie under Section 306 of I.P.C.
4. Countering the arguments, learned APP Mr.
Rohan H.Raval referring to the evidence of P.W.1
- Doctor Gautambhai Vrajlal Naiak, who had
conducted the postmortem along with Doctor S.K.
Vaishnav, submitted that deceased was 80% burned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
from second to third degree and the injury was
also found on the head. Mr. Raval submitted that
the extent and description of the injury have
been recorded in the deposition of P.W.1, who has
relied upon the postmortem report Exh.16. The
panch P.W.2 has proved the place of incident. The
Panchnama-Exh.19 shows that it was the washroom
at the house, where from the plastic bucket as
well as match stick were recorded to be found.
4.1 Learned APP stated that P.W.3 - Viraji
Manaji Thakor has referred to the articles, which
were recovered from the place of incident, apart
from the plastic bucket and the match stick, the
cotton swabs to record the black carbon burns on
the area as well as the blood stain was
recovered.
4.2 Learned APP Mr. Raval referring to the
deposition of P.W.4 - Doctor Mansungbhai
Laljibhai Chaudhary, submitted that on 23.03.2006
at about 4:00 in the evening, the injured was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
brought for the treatment without any police
Yadi. The doctor had informed the P.S.O. of
Visnagar. Placing reliance on the deposition of
P.W.4, learned APP submitted that the names of
all the accused were disclosed by this treating
Doctor, which itself proves the fact of immediate
cause of commission of suicide, where the act of
accused was in the form of continuous nature. The
deceased was continuously mentally harassed by
accused and therefore, deceased burned herself.
Learned APP submitted that according to the
Doctor, it was 90 to 95% burns on the body.
4.3 Learned APP further submitted that it was
not a single incident of harassment, as the
statement recorded by Head Constable proves that
deceased was harassed continuously at the hands
of accused and thus, submitted that the statement
before the husband, Head Constable (P.W.8),
Doctor, Executive Magistrate and Investigating
Officer as Dying Declaration consistently proves
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
the harassment of all the five.
5. Heard learned advocates of both the sides,
perused the record. The Investigating Officer
(P.W.9) - Pravinpuri Shankerpuri Goswami in his
deposition stated that on 23.03.2006, when he was
at his police station he received the statement
of Laxmiben Arunbhai Somabhai from Visnagar and
after making the information entry, the P.S.O.
handed over the investigation to him and
thereafter, he recorded the statement of Laxmiben
and on registration of complaint as C.R. No.23/06
under Sections 498A, 306, 511 and 114 of I.P.C.,
the further investigation was carried by him. He
visited the place of incident for drawing the
Panchnama, and thereafter in presence of F.S.L.
Officer, the muddamal were seized. The statements
of the witnesses were recorded, and since the
complainant lady died during the treatment,
further statements of the witnesses were
recorded. The muddamal was sent for F.S.L.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
examination and after receiving the dying
declaration from the Executive Magistrate placing
along the inquest Panchnama, P.M. Note and the
F.S.L. report, he filed the charge-sheet.
5.1 In the cross-examination, the Investigating
Officer affirmed that he had recorded the
complaint Exh.36 of Laxmiben. The Information
Entry No.7/06 was registered by P.S.O. The depute
order he placed on record at Exh.45. The
Investigating Officer in his deposition-in-chief
stated that he had produced report Exh.16 for
deletion of Section 511 I.P.C. in the matter.
5.2 From the cross-examination of the
Investigating Officer, it could be brought that
accused were not related to the complainant. I.O.
had not procured any pedigree to show the
relationship of accused with deceased and had
also affirmed that deceased was not staying along
with the accused. The Investigating Officer could
also affirm that accused No.3 - Khodidas, accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
No.4 - Mehulbhai and accused No.5 - Ketanbhai,
all the three were studying and when he had gone
for arresting accused - Khodidas Jayantibhai, it
has been recorded in the statement that, he had
gone to give his English paper at the college and
in the same way, Ketanbhai had also given such
facts in the statement.
5.3 From the cross-examination it could also
become clear that there was no transaction
regarding money, nor there was any issue of
dowry. The Investigating Officer clarified that
during the investigation it came to his knowledge
that on 23.03.2006, accused Gunvantiben and her
three sons had passed near the house of deceased
and had spoken unpalatable words, and the
Investigating Officer also stated that during his
investigation he had recorded statement of the
neighbours - Kiranbhai Kanahiyabhai and Somabhai
Punjabhai. The record suggests that none of these
persons have been examined during the trial. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
Investigating Officer could say that in the
statement of both these witnesses, they had got
it recorded that there were often quarrels
between the complainant and the accused. However,
this fact could not be corroborated in absence of
examination of Kiranbhai Kanahiyabhai and
Somabhai Punjabhai. The family was having
quarrel, but it appears that the same was because
accused No.1, who was a Talati, which fact gets
disclosed in the cross-examination of the husband
of the deceased P.W.5 - Jadav Arunbhai Somabhai,
where he had stated that his younger brother
Yogesh wanted to purchase a plot and accused No.1
- Jayantibhai Narottambhai had raised a dispute
before the Panchayat. The dispute raised was by
accused No.1 in his official capacity.
5.4 The incident of 17.05.1993 would have no
direct bearing to the act of deceased committing
suicide, where the complainant would say that on
that day as accused were not invited in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
marriage ceremony of younger brother Yogesh,
therefore, there were quarrels between them, and
prior to the incident the complaint was filed
against them as well as against accused. The
marriage occasion is of the year 1993. The grudge
would have no connection with the deceased, to
connect the cause.
6. As per the husband P.W.6, when he reached
home he saw his daughter crying and his wife was
lying in the toilet. He had inquired from his
wife, at that time, the wife stated that their
neighbours, who were relatives, Jayantibhai and
his wife Gunvantiben and sons Khodidas, Mehul and
Ketan, all of them since long were mentally and
physically harassing her, and since she could not
bear it she had taken the step.
7. As stated by learned advocate Mr. Bharda,
the husband for the very first time came to know
about the harassment, which rightly stated is
unbelievable. Had the accused since long
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
harassing deceased mentally as well as
physically, she certainly would have informed her
husband. The husband could have filed complaint
against accused or could have taken any further
steps to restrain them from such an act.
7.1 The husband in his deposition further stated
that at about 2:15 in the afternoon, the wife was
alone and at that time Gunvantiben and her sons
were passing by and as alleged, had stated that
she was quarrelsome and that she was a rot in the
family, therefore too, for that reason she had
poured kerosene in her body.
8. The Investigating Officer though stated that
he had recorded the statement of the witnesses
neighbours - Kiranbhai Kanahiyabhai and Somabhai
Punjabhai, none of them have been examined to
corroborate the fact that in the afternoon
Gunvantiben and her sons had uttered such
disputed facts alleging her to be quarrelsome and
a rot in the family.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
8.1 It is required to be noted that the Trial
Court has not believed the family relation of the
deceased with accused. Such instance of rebuking
deceased with such utterance, was on the road,
the prosecution was required to prove the
incident by examining the referred witnesses.
9. Exh.43 statement recorded by the witness
P.W.8 - Harshadkumar Gnabhai, Head Constable,
only records that in the afternoon at 2 O' clock,
four of them had mentally harassed deceased and
therefore, she poured kerosene on her body, while
the statement does not refer to the utterance,
which the husband (P.W.6) had stated in his
deposition. The statement Exh.43 refers to the
mental harassment in a continuous form through
telephone. Had there been such telephonic
conversation, then the prosecution was required
to prove the records. Exh.43 states only of
mental harassment. What was the harassment, how
and in what manner she was subjected to such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
mental harassment is not brought by the statement
of deceased on record by Exh.43.
9.1 The dying declaration does not refer to such
utterance by accused Gunvantiben and her sons
Pinto, Mehul and Khodiya. It only records that
because of mental harassment, she had smashed her
forehead and caused injury and burned herself by
pouring kerosene. Thus, the evidence of the
husband of such an utterance on that day at 2:00
or 2:15 in the afternoon does not get proved by
the dying declaration as well as the statement
Exh.36. The dying declaration refers to
harassment by Jayanti Talati. Such reference is
made thrice in the dying declaration. The dying
declaration would record that it was only because
of harassment of Jayanti Talati she had committed
suicide, while on that very day, no reference has
been made of Jayanti Talati being present at 2:00
or 2:15 in the afternoon near the house of
deceased. The presence of sons of accused Nos.1
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
and 2 at the alleged place could not be proved.
However, no cogent evidence could be brought on
record by way of any documentary evidence to
prove that they were writing the examination by
the defence. Still the defence could bring it by
way of evidence of the Investigating Officer,
that such statement was given by the accused to
the Investigating Officer.
9.2 The dying declaration, as recorded by P.W.5
though would say that the injured was conscious
and in a fit state of mind at the time of
recording of the dying declaration. However, it
has also been brought on record that deceased
could not have read the dying declaration, as she
also had burn injuries on the eyes, but the fact
remains that Executive Magistrate after ensuring
from the Doctor had recorded the statement. Even
if the dying declaration is taken into
consideration for analysing the evidence on
record to consider the case of any instigation,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
then the incident of that day does not get
proved. The deceased had not given specific
details of that day, to allege that on the day of
incident accused Gunvantiben and her sons had
harassed her. The only general statement in the
dying declaration is that all the accused have
mentally harassed her and therefore, she had
injured herself on the forehead and self
emulated.
10. If dying declaration along with statement of
the husband is to be considered, then the dispute
was with regard to the official duty of accused
No.1, who raised objection for the plot which was
to be purchased by the younger brother. It
appears that since Talati was residing in the
neighborhood, all the members of the family came
to be roped in the matter. This Court does not
find any proximate cause to connect all the
present accused to the incident, to consider it
as a case of any abetment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
11. In the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2025 INSC 990:
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court posed a question whether every allegation
or accusation levelled, a reprimand or rebuke
made, an insinuation or insult voiced or even
continuous acts of ill-treatment, harassment and
defamation; as alleged in this case, would lead
to a charge of abetment, if the person at the
receiving end commits suicide, is a vexed
question the Courts are called upon to decide
when a charge is raised under Section 306 of the
Penal Code, 1860.
11.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to
the judgments of (i) Ude Singh Vs. State of
Haryana [(2019) 17 SCC 301, (ii) State of West
Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73],
(iii) Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
[(2017) 7 SCC 780], (iv) Amalendu Pal Vs. State
of West Bengal [(2010) 1 SCC 707], (v) S.S.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [(2010) 12 SCC
190], (vi) Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi [(2009) 16 SCC 605], (vii) Madan Mohan
Singh Vs. State of Gujarat [(2010) 8 SCC 628],
(viii) Prakash Vs. State of Maharashtra [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3835], (ix) Mangat Ram Vs. State of
Haryana [(2012) 13 SCC 627], (x) State of Haryana
Vs. Bhajanlal [(1992) Supp. (1) scc 335], to
answer the question so raised.
11.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter
relying on various decisions, in paragraph Nos.22
and 23 observed as under:
"22. What comes out essentially from the
various decisions herein before cited is
that, even if there is allegation of
constant harassment, continued over a long
period; to bring in the ingredients of
Section 306 read with Section 107, still
there has to be a proximate prior act to
clearly find that the suicide was the direct
consequence of such continuous harassment,
the last proximate incident having finally
driven the subject to the extreme act of
taking one's life. Figuratively, 'the straw
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
that broke the camel's back'; that final
event, in a series, that occasioned a
larger, sudden impact resulting in the
unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the
victim to that extreme act, often depends on
individual predilections; but whether it is
goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a
particular act of another, is the test to
find mens rea. Merely because the victim was
continuously harassed and at one point, he
or she succumbed to the extreme act of
taking his life cannot by itself result in
finding a positive instigation constituting
abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely
by what goes on in the mind of the victim.
23. 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 of mens
rea and resultant abetment on that other
person. What constitutes mens rea is the
intention and purpose of the alleged
perpetrator as discernible from the
conscious acts or words and the attendant
circumstances, which in all probability
could lead to such an end. The real
intention of the accused and whether he
intended by his action to at least possibly
drive the victim to suicide, is the sure
test. Did the thought of goading the victim
to suicide occur in the mind of the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
or whether it can be inferred from the facts
and circumstances arising in the case, as
the true test of mens rea would depend on
the facts of each case. The social status,
the community setting, the relationship
between the parties and other myriad factors
would distinguish one case from another.
However harsh or severe the harassment,
unless there is a conscious deliberate
intention, mens rea, to drive another person
to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding
of abetment under Section 306."
12. In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu
versus State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it
has been held that in a case of alleged abetment
of suicide, there must be proof of direct or
indirect act(s) 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
deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms
of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.
12.1 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
(2020) 15 SCC 359 After considering the
provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, the
Court held that conviction under Section 306 IPC
is not sustainable 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.
12.2 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC
244, it was held that there has to be an act of
incitement on the part of the accused proximate
to the date on which the deceased committed
suicide. The act attributed should not only be
proximate to the time of suicide but should also
be of such a nature that the deceased was left
with no alternative but to take the drastic step
of committing suicide.
12.3 In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the
observations are made with regard to abetment of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
suicide. It has been held that in order to bring
a case within purview of Section 306 IPC, there
must be a case of suicide and in commission of
said offence, person who is said to have abetted
commission of suicide must have played active
role by act of instigation or by doing certain
act to facilitate commission of suicide. It has
been further observed that the act of abetment by
person charged with said offence must be proved
and established by prosecution before he could be
convicted under Section 306 IPC. It is further
observed that to satisfy requirement of
instigation, accused by his act or omission or by
a continued course of conduct should have created
such circumstances that deceased was left with no
other option, except to commit suicide.
12.4 In the case of State of West Bengal Vs.
Orilal Jaiswal, [(1994) 1 SCC 73], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has cautioned in Para-17 as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
"17. ... The Court should be extremely careful
in assessing the facts and circumstances of
each case and the evidence adduced in the
trial for the purpose of finding whether the
cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact
induced her to end the life by committing
suicide. If it transpires to the Court that
a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life
quite common to the society to which the
victim belonged and such petulance, discord
and differences were not expected to induce
a similarly circumstanced individual in a
given society to commit suicide, the
conscience of the Court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the
accused charged of abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty...."
12.5 In the case of M. Mohan v. State
Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, [AIR 2011 SC 1238 : (2011) 3 SCC 626],
the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the following
observations regarding the ingredients of Section
306 IPC, referring to the word 'suicide', which
reads thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
"If the provisions for the offence under
Section 306 are considered, it is evident
that the basic ingredient regarding the
intentional instigation are required to be
proved or established. The word 'suicide'
has not been defined. The word 'suicide'
would mean the intentional killing of
oneself. As per Concise Oxford Dictionary,
9th Edition, p.686, "A finding of suicide
must be on evidence of intention. Every act
of self destruction is, in common language
described by the word 'suicide' provided it
is an intentional act of a party knowing the
probable consequence of what he is about.
Suicide is never to be presumed. Intention
is the essential legal ingredient."
12.6 In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has
been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
12.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, [2010 (12)
SCC 190] in regard to the abetment has held 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 this Court is 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
and that act must have been intended to push
the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide."
12.8 In the case of Nareshkumar v. State of
Haryana, (2024) 3 SCC 573, wherein it was held
that the basic ingredient to constitute an
offence under Section 306 IPC are suicidal death
and abetment thereof. Abetment involves the
mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Thus, without a positive act on the part
of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Thus, in
order to convict a person under Section 306,
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence and mere harassment, held, cannot be
sufficient to hold an accused guilty of
commission of suicide. Further, it was held that
the prosecution has to prove an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide. It was held that ingredients of mens rea
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present, but
has to be visible and conspicuous.
12.9 In the case of Patel Babubhai Manohardas &
Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 2025 (2) Crimes 213 SC,
it has been held that abetment to commit suicide
involves a mental process of instigating a person
or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without positive proximate act on part of
the accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides,
in order to convict a person under Section 306
IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit
offence. The act attributed should not only be
proximate to time of suicide, but should also be
of such a nature that the deceased was left with
no alternative, but to take drastic step of
committing suicide. Until and unless, some guilty
intention on part of the accused is established,
it is ordinarily not possible to convict accused
for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
12.10 Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate
to the time of occurrence on the part of accused,
which led or compel deceased to commit suicide,
would not make the conviction sustainable under
Section 306 I.P.C. The act attributed should not
only be proximate to the time of suicide, but
should also be of such a nature that deceased was
left with no alternative but to take the drastic
step of committing suicide. To satisfy the
requirement of instigation, accused by his act or
omission or by continued course of conduct should
have created such circumstances that deceased was
left with no other option except to commit
suicide.
12.11 Here, in the present case, the incident
which is alleged to have occurred in the
afternoon is not proved. The husband of deceased
was continuously with the victim - deceased. When
the husband approached house after the wife
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
committing suicide, he saw his daughter crying,
but no evidence is brought on record as to what
were the neighbours doing or what was the
immediate act of the neighbours after knowing of
the incident. The investigation could not prove
that accused No.2 and her children actually spoke
such things which was inciting in nature in an
extreme form, which drove the victim to that
extent. Often the act depends on individual sense
of predilections. Whether the act alleged was in
the form of goading definitively and
demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is
the test to find mens rea. Merely because the
victim was continuously harassed and at one
point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of
taking his life cannot by itself result in
finding a positive instigation constituting
abetment, as observed in the case of Abhinav
Mohan Delkar (supra), wherein it was also
recorded that mens rea cannot be gleaned merely
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
by what goes on in the mind of the victim. What
constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose
of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from
the conscious acts or words and the attendant
circumstances, which in all probability could
lead to such an end. The real intention of the
accused and whether he intended by his action to
at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is
the sure test.
12.12 The wife of accused No.1 and the children,
who were arraigned as rest of accused, possibly
would not have any such thoughts of goading the
victim to suicide. The circumstances, as has been
tried to be projected by the prosecution
immediately before the suicide is also not
proved, nor can be said to be inferred from the
facts and circumstances, as has been brought on
record. Accused No.1, the Talati was not present
at that time. The children were going for the
examination. Thus, merely on allegation of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
harassment without any positive act or with the
alleged continued course of conduct, which
appears to have created such circumstances that
deceased was left with no option except to commit
suicide, would be the essence of abetment which
could be read with reasonable certainty unless
proved cannot be believed. The word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to
be instigation. The prosecution was required to
prove an active act or direct act, which led
deceased to commit suicide. The ingredients of
mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly
present, but has to be visible and conspicuous.
12.13 The variation in the statements and the
fact that deceased was not in a position to even
read her own statement and when the immediate
statement recorded by the P.S.O. does not clarify
the alleged proximate act; and the circumstances
also do not prove that accused had intended any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
such consequences of deceased to take such
extreme step, where actually the dealing was of
accused No.1 as Talati with the younger brother
and the husband of deceased, and when deceased
and accused were not related to each other, there
was no cause for accused to even make such
utterance without any family connection.
12.14 The observations of the learned Judge
thus, is not consistent with the principle laid
down in the referred judgments as well as not
consistent with the facts on record. The
appreciation of evidence have been inconsistent
when the Trial Court Judge had clearly concluded
that accused had no family relation with
deceased, which itself would have been the cause
to draw the conclusion that there would not have
been any such instigation or abetment from the
side of accused for commission of suicide.
13. In view of the observations made herein
above and the principle of law propounded in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2272/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
referred judgments, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment of conviction and sentence dated
30.11.2006, passed by 6th Fast Track Judge,
Mahesana in Sessions Case No.91/2006 is set
aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the
charges. Registry is directed to send the Record
and Proceedings back to the concerned Trial Court
forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/10
