Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Gomanbhai Parshottambhai Prajapati on 6 October, 2025

Author: Gita Gopi

Bench: Gita Gopi

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                      R/CR.A/965/2009                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025


                                                                                                                  undefined




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                           R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 965 of
                                                 2009



                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                      HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI                            Sd/-

                      =============================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                       Yes            No
                                                                                --       
                      =============================================
                                                STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                      Versus
                                        GOMANBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PRAJAPATI
                      =============================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS MONALI BHATT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
                      Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
                      1
                      =============================================

                       CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                                       Date : 06/10/2025

                                                        ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Appeal has been preferred by the State

under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'Cr.P.C")

against the judgment and order of conviction and

sentence passed by the learned 3 rd Additional District

Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

Sessions Case No.276 of 2007 dated 08.04.2009. The

trial against the accused was conducted under

Sections 498A, 323 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC). The sole accused as the husband came to be

convicted for all the offences. For the offence

punishable under Section 498A IPC, the accused was

sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment

and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in failure of payment

of fine, to undergo further one month of simple

imprisonment.

1.1. For the offence punishable under Section 306

IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo three years

simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and

in failure of payment of fine, to undergo further one

month of simple imprisonment. It was observed in the

order that since the offence punishable under Section

323 IPC gets included in the offence under Section

498A IPC, no separate order was passed for the offence

punishable under Section 323 IPC.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

1.2. The order further observed that all the sentences

would run concurrently with the benefit of set-off

under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Monali Bhatt

has produced the jail remarks. It transpires that the

accused had undergone imprisonment and has served

a sentence of 3 years, 1 month and 3 days. The

accused was released on 29.08.2010, where the set-off

of 28 days was granted to the accused.

3. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt contended that the

penal provision for Section 306 IPC is imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to ten

years, and shall also be liable to fine. For Section

498A IPC, it is submitted that the punishment is of

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three

years and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, learned

APP submitted that the sentence ordered is not

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

proportionate to the penal provision in accordance to

the gravity of the offence where, it is a case that wife

sustained 98% to 99% burn injuries over her body

because of the cruelty of the accused. It is further

submitted that the marriage span is only of four years,

hence, the provision under Section 113A of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 for the presumption of offence

would also get attracted, adding to the fact that the

accused-husband had left the place of offence leaving

the wife unattended, inspite of the fact that the suicide

was committed in his presence. It is also submitted

that the conduct itself would prove the provision of

Section 107 IPC where mens rea of the husband gets

proved with the proximate cause immediately to the

date of suicide being the mental and physical cruelty

of the husband. It is alleged that the husband would

quarrel and beat his wife after consuming liquor and

that the cruelty stayed and continued till the date of

suicide.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

4. Learned APP submitted that the learned trial Court

Judge was too lenient in awarding the sentence where

the learned Judge was required to consider the

conduct of the accused at the time of the incident.

The case of continuous harassment physical as well as

mental has been believed by the learned trial Court

Judge of the husband against the wife by consuming

liquor, then to cause a deterrent effect, the

punishment ought to have commensurate in

accordance with the provisions of the Act, more

specially when the mens rea has been proved during

the trial.

5. The facts of the case as could be noted is that the

complainant-Hansaben had married respondent and

both were staying together since the last four years at

Amod Patia, Surat. It was the deceased's love marriage.

The deceased's brother-in-law and his wife were also

residing in the same vicinity. The respondent-

husband was working in Gujarat Glass but was not

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

going on job, while was beating the deceased after

consuming liquor. On 19.07.2007 at about 10.00

p.m., the accused started beating the deceased after

consuming liquor and being offended by such an act of

the accused, the deceased poured kerosene on her

body and set herself ablaze lighting with a match

stick. Seeing so, the accused ran away from the place

and when the victim starting crying for help, the

people in the vicinity ran and tried to save the

deceased. The brother-in-law took the deceased to the

hospital for treatment, where she gave the complaint

dated 20.07.2007. The learned Executive Magistrate

recorded her dying declaration in the hospital and

during the course of treatment, complainant died.

6. The Appeal has been filed under Section 377 of Cr.P.C

which reads as under :-

"377. Appeal by the State Government against sentence. - (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), the State Government may, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy -

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

(a) to the Court of session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate and

(b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court.

(2) If such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation in to an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, [the Central Government may also direct] the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy-

(a) to the Court of session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate and

(b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court.

(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Sessions or, as the case may be, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence.

(4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) , the appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of filing of such appeal."

7. Thus, in view of the provision under sub-section (3) of

Section 377 of Cr.P.C., the case of the accused can

also be examined for acquittal or even for reduction of

the sentence, hence, the examination would be on the

merits of the case.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

8. Learned APP has placed reliance on the complaint filed

by the victim herself-Exhibit 31 as well as the dying

declaration-Exhibit 19. Witness-PW13-Maheshkumar

Muvantrai Vasani was the Police Inspector,

Ankleshwar, on 20.07.2007 on the instructions of his

superior officer he had gone for legal proceedings of the

victim at Civil Hospital, the victim Hansaben

Gomanbhai Prajapati in the presence of the Medical

Officer had given him the complaint.

9. Learned APP submitted that the complaint before this

PW13 should be considered as a first dying declaration

and the facts as noted in the complaint becomes

admissible as the dying declaration, since the evidence

has come on record that the complaint had been given

in a fit state of mind in the presence of a medical

officer. It is further stated that the complaint gets re-

established by the Dying Declaration-Exhibit 19 which

was recorded by PW17. The learned Executive

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

Magistrate had recorded the dying declaration had

been proved during the trial and no doubt could be

raised of the procedure of recording of the dying

declaration. It is further submitted that the same had

also been examined by the trial Court and the same

has been considered as proof.

10. In the background of the arguments raised by learned

APP, the complaint-Exhibit 31 on perusal, would

reflect that it was the second marriage of the victim

which was a love marriage with the accused. The

deceased has stated that she was staying with her

husband-the accused at Amod Patia in the house of

Umed Balubhai Prajapati. The parents were staying at

Village Amod, Jambusar and the deceased's brother-

in-law and his wife were staying in the nearby vicinity

of Amod Patia.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

11. From the complaint, it appears that the accused was

having his job at Gujarat Glass as a Contractor.

According to the wife, the accused was not going to the

job and was verbally abusing her and would beat her

after consuming liquor and there were often quarrels

between them. On the night of the earlier day at about

10.00 pm, the accused had come in an intoxicated

state and had stated abusing and beating the victim

wife. The wife got offended, poured kerosene on her

body and self immolated herself by lighting a match

stick. The wife in the complaint stated that suddenly

because of the fire, the husband escaped and ran away

from the place; the wife started shouting to save her,

people from the neighborhood had come and protected

her, and the younger brother-in-law had brought her

for treatment. In the complaint, the wife has stated

that since the husband was often abusing her after

consuming liquor and was beating her, she had taken

this step.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

12. The complaint has been proved by the deposition of

the Police Inspector-PW13-Maheshkumar Muvantrai

Vasani. In the cross examination, PW13 had stated

that when he had rushed to the hospital, primary

treatment was going on and he came to know about

the incident at about 8.15 in the morning and within

45 minutes, he reached Bharuch Hospital which was

at 9 in the morning. He had gone to the hospital at

the casualty ward, searched for the victim and he

himself took the complaint. He denied the suggestion

that the victim got burnt extensively and therefore, she

was not in a position to give the complaint and even

denied the suggestion that because of the medicine,

she was drowsy. The complaint-Exhibit 31 has been

proved by witness. There was no case to doubt the

complaint as according to PW13, even the Doctor had

endorsed the complaint with the observation that the

patient was conscious. The fact that the brother-in-

law had taken the complainant for treatment and

coupled with the fact that none of the family members

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

of the victim were present there at the time when the

complaint was recorded, there was no scope of any

prompting from any of the interested persons, nor any

such suggestion has been placed in the cross

examination of the complaint being recorded on

instruction of the some other persons other than the

victim.

13. The Dying Declaration at Exhibit 19 is on record. The

cause of suicide is the cruelty meted out to her, the

husband was not going for work and was quarreling

with her after consuming liquor and on that day from

the morning, there was a quarrel between them and

the quarrel continued since the last many days and

since the husband was beating and consuming liquor,

she got fed up by the act of the accused and the wife

burnt herself. The marriage span as recorded in the

dying declaration was of four years. The couple did

not have any children from their love marriage and it

was further stated that it was because of the quarrel

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

with the husband, the wife had taken the extreme

step.

14. During the course of the trial, about 16 witnesses were

examined. The fact which has come on record shows

that it was a love marriage between the deceased-

victim and the accused. The proceedings shows that

neither the parents of the victim nor the siblings of the

victim have been made part of the investigation. PW15

is the Investigating Officer who on 20.07.2007 received

the complaint from PSO Sureshbhai Vasantbhai which

was recorded as I-C.R. No.75 of 2007 under Section

498A, 323 and 306 of IPC. The Investigating Officer

after receiving the investigation, visited the Bharuch

Civil Hospital where the victim was admitted. He had

recorded the panchnama of the place of incident.

Further, the statement of immediate witnesses were

recorded and thereafter from the place of incident, he

took the burnt pieces of clothes marked as Mark 'A'

and a plastic can containing 150 m.g. of kerosene as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

Mark 'B'. The broken match stick as Mark 'C' were sent

for FSL Examination. The FSL Report produced was at

Exhibit 39.

15. As per the Investigating Officer, the accused was

harassing the victim by consuming liquor. It is to be

noted that prior to the incident, no such complaint has

been recorded of accused harassing the victim by

consuming liquor. The Investigating Officer though

stated that he had recorded the statement of necessary

witnesses but the statement of the relatives of the

victim does not appear to have been recorded by the

Investigating Officer. The IO had not sent the accused

for blood test to examine the level of alcohol since the

case was of consumption of liquor to harass the wife.

The 'wilful conduct' of the accused is what the

prosecution has to prove.

16. The dead body of the victim was accepted by

Bharatbhai Parshottambhai Prajapati, who has been

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

examined as PW6-the younger brother-in-law of the

deceased, i.e. the brother of the accused, which itself

makes it clear that none of the immediate family

members from the maternal side of the victim were

present at the hospital. None had claimed the dead

body of the victim lady.

17. The evidence of PW6-Bharatbhai Parshottambhai

Prajapati-the younger brother-in-law was recorded at

Exhibit 20, whereby he had stated that on 19.07.2007,

after having lunch he had gone for labour work and he

received the phone call at 11 o' clock in the night and

therefore, he returned home and took his sister-in-law

for treatment at Civil Hospital, Bharuch. When

enquired from the sister-in-law, she had not informed

about the incident. Witness stated that on 19.07.2007,

she was admitted and on 20.07.2007 at about 11.00

clock in the morning, she died. He stated that he had

received the information that there were quarrel

between them for minor things and no further

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

information was with him. He was declared hostile.

However, in the cross examination by learned APP, he

states that he had given a statement before the police

that his brother was not going for work, he was having

the habit of consuming liquor and then the couple

would quarrel between them and therefore, being fed

up of such quarrels, the sister-in-law burnt herself by

pouring kerosene and lighting with a match stick.

The second statement was recorded by the police

wherein the witness affirmed of narrating that the

victim was the daughter of Savabhai Ramabhai Parmar

and because of the love marriage, the family was not in

relation with them. Both the husband and wife were

staying in the accommodation of one-Ummedbhai and

were earning their livelihood by doing labour work.

His brother-Guman was not doing work. He affirmed

that he had stated before the police that his brother

was not doing any work, was loitering around in an

intoxicated state and was also quarreling with the wife.

In the cross examination, it has come on record that it

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

was a love marriage and from an earlier marriage, she

had children who were staying at her maternal home.

The elder members of the victim's family were against

the marriage. None from the maternal side were

keeping relation with the deceased. It is stated that

the victim had tried to bring the children from her

maternal home but the children were not sent and

thus, stated that the mind of victim was always in an

aggravated form and thus even for minor reasons, she

would quarrel with the neighbours and because of

such nature of the deceased, she was not having

relation with them. He stated that death of Hansaben

was informed at her maternal home but none had

come forward.

18. PW7-Shilaben Bharatbhai Prajapati is the wife of PW6.

Nothing substantial has come in her deposition but

stated that there were quarrels because of the

children. However, PW7 after being declared hostile,

affirmed her statement that the accused was not doing

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

work, was drinking liquor and there were constant

quarrels between the husband and wife. In the cross

examination, she had stated that it was a inter-caste

marriage, the victim had children from her earlier

marriage whom she had left at her maternal home and

no person from her maternal side were on talking

terms, nor had kept any relation with her and that

Hansaben would always remain in anger, her conduct

was not good, as she wanted to bring children from her

maternal home but when the parents at the maternal

side were not allowing the children to come to her,

therefore, for that purpose, she would remain furious.

19. The owner of the rented house was examined as PW8-

Umedbhai Balubhai Prajapati, who had three rooms,

given on rent. He himself was working as a Packer in

the Godown of Pragati Glass Factory. He was declared

hostile but had not supported the statement given the

police. He told that he has no personal knowledge

about the incident.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

20. The facts as could be brought on record by the witness

was that it was the second marriage of the deceased.

From earlier marriage, the victim was having children.

The parents of the victim were not keeping relation

with her and were not allowing the children to meet

her. On the other hand, the accused and his brother

were from the labour class and were working in the

factory of Gujarat Glass. As recorded in the dying

declaration, the marriage span was 4 years and the

husband was not going for any job and while in the

morning, there was quarrel, and since the last many

days, the quarrel continued and as the husband was

beating her after consuming liquor, she, fed up of

such behaviour, she burnt herself to death.

21. The complaint records that her husband was

working as a Contractor in Gujarat Glass. The reason

for not joining the job has not been brought on record.

Whether he was removed from the job or was

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

deliberately not attending the job has not been proved.

The fact of the accused consuming liquor and because

of that, there were quarrels between the husband and

wife had been proved by the witness. Even this fact

has been proved by the complaint and the dying

declaration, but this Court would not concur with the

arguments raised by learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt,

that since the husband had not attended the wife,

when she was burning herself, and left the place and it

was the younger brother-in-law who had taken the

victim to the hospital, and therefore, the conduct

shows his mens rea of instigating the wife to commit

suicide. The fact requires notice that the quarrel was

after the husband beating the wife in an intoxicated

state. The husband's mental state of understanding

the consequences of the conduct of the husband or of

his behaviour would get blurred because of his being

under the influence of liquor thus his escaping or

running away from the place of offence would not be

considered as a conscious act of the accused since he

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

would not be in a mental status to understand his own

conduct.

22. In Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors., rendered in Criminal Appeal

Nos.2177-2185 of 2024 dated 18.08.2025, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.22 and 23 has held

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

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 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

23. In the case of Prakash v. State of Maharashtra,

reported in [2024 INSC 1020], the Hon'ble Supreme

Court after analysing various decisions on the point

summed up the legal position of Section 306 and 107

IPC in the following manner :

"14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well- established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide."

24. In the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors., rendered in Criminal Appeal

Nos.2177-2185 of 2024 dated 18.08.2025, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court considering the provision of Section

306 of IPC raised an issue, 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 the 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 Indian Penal

Code, 1860. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred

and relied to the judgments of Ude Singh and Ors. v.

State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, Ramesh Kumar

v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 as well as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC

25. In the case of Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC

707, it was observed that mens rea is required to be

proved, as has been noted in the case of Ude Singh

(supra), which has been reiterated in the case of S.S.

Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 in

following terms :

"... 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

26. The three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Ramesh Kumar (supra) had an occasion to deal with

a case, in a dispute between the husband and wife, the

appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever

you wish and go wherever you like." The Court in para-

20 has examined different shades of the meaning of

"instigation". Para-20 of the said judgment reads as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

under :

"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."

27. In the case of Ude Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held 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 behaviour 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 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.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the 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, on the other hand, 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 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. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide..."

28. To bring conviction under Section 306 IPC, it is

necessary to establish a clear mens rea by the

instigating of the accused leaving victim with no other

option except to commit suicide. It requires certain

such act, omission, creation of circumstances, words,

which would incite or provoke another person to

commit suicide.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumar @

Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR

2024 SC 1283 after reviewing series of judgments on

the subject matter while summing up, concluded

thus :-

"47. Human mind is an enigma. It is well neigh impossible to unravel the mystery of the human mind. There can be myriad reasons for a man or a woman to commit or attempt to commit suicide; it may be a case of failure to achieve academic excellence, oppressive environment in college or hostel, particularly for students belonging to the marginalized sections, joblessness, financial difficulties, disappointment in love or marriage, acute or chronic ailments, depression, so on and so forth. Therefore, it may not always be the case that someone has to abet commission of suicide. Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself are relevant."

30. In the case of Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya

Pradesh reported in AIR 2025 SC 568, it was held as

under :-

"In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of 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 of IPC."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/965/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

31. In view of the provision of law and the observations

made in the above judgments, the cause which would

have been for commission of suicide, i.e. the act of the

accused beating the accused under the influence of

liquor probably may not have been the proximate

cause. The joblessness of husband was also one of the

factor. The victim was not having relation with parents

and siblings, her children were at her parents' home,

was not able to meet her children. There were multiple