Saurabhbhai Bhaveshbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 6390 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Saurabhbhai Bhaveshbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2025

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.RA/1627/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                                    SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1627 of 2025


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

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

                                    Approved for Reporting                        Yes           No

                       ==========================================================
                                          SAURABHBHAI BHAVESHBHAI SHAH & ANR.
                                                         Versus
                                                  STATE OF GUJARAT
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR INDRAVADAN PARMAR(2738) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
                       MR. H.K. PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                                                              Date : 09/09/2025

                                                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. H.K. Patel waives service of

rule for the respondent No.1 - State.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective

parties. The present revision application is taken up for final

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

hearing. The present revision application has been preferred by

the present applicant original accused nos.1 and 3 under

Section 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha

Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") is directed against the order

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions

Case No.67/2024 rejecting the discharge application preferred

by the present applicants vide Exhibit - 4 by order dated

12.08.2025.

3. The factual matrix of the present case are the first

informant Mr. Alpeshkumar Navinchandra Shah, who is the

brother of the deceased on 14.05.2020 before the Panigate

Police Station, Vadodara on 14.05.2020. It is alleged in the

said FIR that his sister Apeksha her marriage took place with

the Saurabhbhai Bhaveshbhai Shah, the present applicant

accused no.1 resident of Vadodara on 30.11.2012 at Dakor

from his marriage life already passed eight years, from this

marriage they have two children first is the elder daughter

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

Hetvi aged about six years and younger son Dhairya aged

about one year and nine months and after the marriage her

sister was residing in joint family with her mother-in-law and

father-in-law. It is alleged that from the initial phase of the

marriage the mother-in-law and the father-in-law instigating

the husband his sister she was subject to mental and physical

cruelty and the husband of the sister frequently quarreling with

sister and after four months of the marriage. The present

complainant went to the house of the sister and subsequently

settled between them and subsequently her sister treated very

well. Thereafter, again in-laws were threatening her sister

regarding gold ornaments which given to his sister at the time

of marriage, kept that his maternal uncle Pareshbhai for that

she was subject to mental and physical torture. She was

pressurized by in-laws. Further it is stated on 10.08.2020 at

the time 11:13 in the morning his brother in law has telephone

in mobile and stated that his sister taken to Sarita Hospital

and she was declared death and subsequently they went to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

hospital and he was told by the doctor his sister was died

because she was stuck in the lift, subsequently his sister

residing at Shriji Villa Flat. Thereafter, he came to know that

his sister was subject to physical and mentally cruelty everyday

by her mother in law, sister in law and husband because of

that she jumped from the fifth floor of the flat and commit

suicide.

4. After this type of complaint has been given, investigation

has been carried by the investigating agency. Thereafter,

investigation over and charge sheet has been filed by the

Investigating Officer against the accused persons for the offence

punishable under Section 306, 498(A), 323 and 114 of the

Indian Penal Code. Further, during the trial accused no.2

father in law deceased Bhavesh Natvarlal has been expired so

trial has been abetted qua accused. Further the present

applicant original accused nos.1 and 3 moved an application

before the learned Trial Court under Section 250 of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

B.N.S.S. seeking discharge vide Exhibit 4 of the said

application came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge

on 12.08.2025and being aggrieved and dissatisfied of the said

order and present revision application has been preferred.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Indravadan Parmar for the

applicant has submitted that considering the fact and

circumstances of the case, perusing the charge sheet papers,

material produced on record. It appears that none of the

ingredients of the offence under Section 107 of the Indian

Penal Code are satisfied with the present applicant. So far he

submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial

Court is non speaking order contrary to the facts unjust,

erroneous against the provision of law, the same is required to

be quashed and set aside. Further it is submitted that looking

to the FIR also there is no reference or mention of any

quarrel, assault altercation before or on the day of incident on

10.03.2020. Having nexus for looking any proximity between

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

any role of any applicant offence alleged. Further it is

submitted that no allegation of specific role of instigation or

any of the accused has define under Section 107 of the Indian

Penal Code which is necessary to attract ingredients for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Further it is submitted that isolated incidence of domestic

quarrel casually alleged without pointing out specific incidence

relate to period from December 2012 to 2013 seven years prior

to incident of 10.05.2020 asking back from maternal uncle

where before six years of the incident sole basis of the alleged

implicated. The present applicant for the offence under Section

306, 498(A), 323 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code

without attracting mens-rea of incidence of law essentially

ingredients of said offence and conspicuously missing in the

entire FIR, which are necessary to constitute offence alleged

frame the charge. Further it is submitted that there was no

single reference to any phone calls from the deceased either

his family members. Further instance of routine nature of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

domestic quarrel between the husband and wife cannot be

termed instigating by the husband to committee suicide. There

are twenty prosecution witnesses statement has been recorded

all are family members, relative and the friends of the

deceased and none of the prosecution witness stated anything

about the instigation of the present applicant. Further it is

submitted that in the learned Trial Court he is relying upon

thirteen authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court but none of the

authority deal with learned Trial Court. Hence, submitted that

the order itself is illegal requires to be set aside. Further

present case before this Court he is relying upon Jaydeepsinh

Pravinsinh Chavda and others Vs. State of Gujarat reported in

(2025)2 SCC 116 other copies of the judgment provided along

with this only one judgment copy has been provided and

submitted that considering this from the material. Considering

the bare perusal of the provisions of Section 107 of the

B.N.S.S. Act (Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code) crystal

clear ingredients of the provisions of Section are not satisfied

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

and same are not attracted against the present applicant and

the element of mens-rea instigation is required under Section

107 of the Indian Penal Code. Further it is submitted that no

material has been produced to show that there is a clear mens-

rea commit the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal

Code, the present applicant have no attract or acute role.

Further proper specific allegation with regard to instigation or

mens-rea part of the accused. There is proximity between the

incident and the instigation to deceased to commit suicide and

submitted that present case key element of mens-rea instigation

is required under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code Further

it is submitted that there is neither any appropriate allegation

regarding instigation nor any proximity between the incident

and instigation to the deceased. The present applicant factum

of suicide has taken place and submitted that present revision

application is required to be allowed and applicants are

discharge.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr. H.K. Patel has

vehemently opposed the said revision application and

submitted that even from the material produced along with the

charge sheet, there is a clear case, there is sufficient material

has been produced to frame the charge. The present deceased

wife of the present applicant no.1 accused has jumped from

the flat and commit suicide. It is clearly emerges from the

charge sheet papers, the deceased was subject to mental and

physical cruelty, she was beaten by the in-laws even from the

statement of the neighbors who are residing next to the

deceased as specifically stated date on 09.05.2020 in the night

the deceased Apekshaben was subject to the physical and

mental cruelty she was beaten by the in-laws and in the

morning of the 10.05.2020 even the neighbors have heard she

was beaten by the in-laws and subsequently in the morning at

about 10:30 the deceased Apekshaben has jumped from the flat

and commit suicide, there is sufficient material is there. It is

submitted that the sufficient material has been produced by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

investigating agency that present applicant have instigated and

abetted the commission of the crime of the suicide by the wife

and she was subjected to the physical and mental cruelty and

because of that the deceased has no option to commit suicide.

It was coming from the deposition of the witnesses also. Once

the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the

application is just and proper, does not require any

interference and present revision application require dismissed.

7. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned

advocates for the respective parties, perusing the impugned

order passed by the learned Trial Court and also perusing the

charge sheet papers, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of

this Court, it is profitable to peruse the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh

Chander and another reported in 2012 Lawsuit (SC) 609. In the

said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paras 8 and 9

as under:-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

8...."Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provision of law, the fining recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.

9. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revision jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

the proceedings under the Cr.P.C...."

8. Keeping in mind the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the present case, the case of the prosecution present

applicant no.1 is the husband of the deceased and the present

applicant no.2 is the mother in law of deceased Apekshaben.

It is undisputed fact marriage has been more than eight years,

further from the FIR and the statement of the witnesses it has

been clear establishing that Apekshaben was subjected to

physical and mental torture by the in-laws right from the

initial phase of the marriage and specifically as gold was kept

by the maternal uncle of the deceased because of that she was

subjected to the mental and physical torture. She was subject

to the beating by the in-laws. Even statement of the neighbors

more particularly Prakashbhai Kantibhai and Vijaybhai

Ranchhodbhai Patel who are the neighbors of the deceased

where deceased was residing with her husband and in-laws has

specifically stated that incident took place on 10.05.2020 and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

as per the statement they are residing next to the accused no.1

and since last five years, they are quarreling with their

daughter in law that is the deceased by the father in law and

mother in law and her husband and they are quarreling and

they are also beating the Apekshaben and her mother in law

was quarreling with the Apekshaben frequently even on

09.05.2020 at about 12.00 o'clock in the night. There was

quarreling took place in the house and subsequently on

10.05.2020 morning quarreling took place in the kitchen and

specifically there was torture mentally and physically from the

in-laws and the husband, and her son Dhairya was suffering

from illness because of this torture, she cannot be able to take

care of his son and because of that immediately she jumped

from the 5th floor of this flat and commit suicide immediately.

9. However, learned advocate for the applicant has relying

upon the judgment of Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (supra),

in paras 17 to 22 and 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

under:-

"17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. The involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his-her own life.

18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea-the intention to abet the act-is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led that deceased to take his/her own life. THe element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, wherein it was observed that:

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ration of the cases decided by the Supreme 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 and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

19. To bring a conviction under Section 306, IPC it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation of circumstances, or words which incite ot provoke another person to commit suicide. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, defined the word "instigate" as 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 certainly 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 o emotion without intending the consequence

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

20. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case under Section 306, IPC are:

i. the abetment ii. the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

21.Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative that the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. This, in cases of death of a wife, the Court must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide.

22. It is essential to establish that the death was a result of suicide and that the accused actively abetted its commission. This can involve instigating the victim or engaging in specific actions that facilitated the act. The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused played a definitive role in the abetment. Without clear evidence of an active role in provoking or assisting the suicide, a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

26. On a careful and close consideration of the facts and the material on record in the present case and in light of the law laid down by this Court regarding Section 306, IPC, there appears no proximate link between the alleged facts, instances of harassment and her subsequent death by hanging. The alleged incident of selling of gold ornaments and subsequent physical and mental harassment, as alleged, occurred almost a year before the FIR was registered at the instance of the father of the deceased. Even the statements of the deceased's cousins only mention instances which occurred a year prior to the death of the deceased. Further, selling of gold ornaments and the same was followed by discord and harassment upon their demand, even if true, do not reflect any intention to instigate, incite or provoke the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment and such issues between the wife and her husband along with the in-laws do not appear to create a scenario where she was left with no option other than to end her life. There is, therefore, absence of mens rea to instigate suicide of the deceased persons. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the appellants did not have the requisite mens rea and neither did they commit any positive or direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased."

10. From the above judgments, relied upon by the learned

advocate for the applicant, it emerges that to prove the offence

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, ingredients of

abetment as provided under Section 107 of the Indian Penal

Code are required to be satisfied. Therefore, first of all, there

must be a material regarding direct or indirect instigation by

the accused and it must be in close proximity to the

commission of suicide and may be along with clear mens-rea

to abet in the commission of suicide. If these being satisfied,

then only, the prima facie case can be made out under Section

306 of the Indian Penal Code.

11. Now it is profitable to peruse Section 306 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.

"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.

107. Abetment of a thing.--

A person abets the doing of a thing, who--

(First)-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or

(Secondly)-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

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.IllustrationA, a public officer, is authorized 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 B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

Explanation 2.-- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

12. Upon plain reading of the above sections now present

case is concerned as per the case of the prosecution date of

incident that is 10.05.2020 in the morning the deceased

Apekshaben was beaten by the in-laws and her husband in the

kitchen and on 09.05.2020 and in night also she was beaten

by the in-laws and husband and from the statement recorded

under Section 161 also it is transpired that she was subjected

to the physical and mental torture by the in laws and husband

right from the marriage and subsequently even on the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

10.05.2020 she was beaten by the applicant no.1 husband in

the morning in the kitchen and immediately thereafter she

commit suicide.

13. Further, from the charge sheet papers as per the

statement recorded by the neighbors, it was transpired that the

deceased Apekshaben was subjected to mental and physical

cruelty by the in-laws and she was specifically subjected to

mental and physical cruelty. So it clearly establish the mens-

rea on the part of present applicant, material produced along

with the charge sheet further direct action by the present

applicants and also instigation and it was within very close

proximity of the commission of the suicide and therefore from

the charge sheet papers and the conduct mens-rea and also

prima facie established. Therefore, over all material produced

along with charge sheet, there is sufficient evidence against the

present applicant and the role attributed to the present

applicant with grave suspicion and there is sufficient material

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

to frame the charge against the present applicant.

14. Further, I have also perused the findings recorded by the

learned Trial Court wherein, the learned Trial Court, while

rejecting the application for discharge, in the impugned order,

recorded that from the material produced along with the

charge sheet, the Court has not to consider whether the

evidence will bring home the conviction or whether it resulted

into acquittal but, whether there is a material produced, by

which, it can be inferred that there is no prima facie case has

been established against the present applicant and the accused

can be discharged or whether there is sufficient evidence to

frame the charge or not, is required to be considered. The

learned Trial Court has also recorded that considering the

transcript between the present applicant and the deceased,

there is a sufficient evidence, prima facie, found against the

present applicant to frame the charge against him. Hence, the

findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are just and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

proper and I do not find any illegality which would warrant

any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned

Trial Court.

15. Accordingly, no case is made out entertain the present

revision application. The present revision application

no.1627/2025 is here rejected. The order dated 12.08.2025

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara vide order

below Exhibit 4 in Sessions Case No.67/2024 rejecting the

discharge application of present applicants is here by

confirmed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(L. S. PIRZADA, J) HRT