Gujarat High Court
Patel Gandalal Joitaram vs State Of Gujarat on 24 September, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1309 of 2005
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2107 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
PATEL GANDALAL JOITARAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance in Criminal Appeal No.1309 of 2005:
MR J M PANCHAL(529) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR K J PANCHAL(2422) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS REKHA H KAPADIA(2246) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN H.RAVAL APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Criminal Appeal No.2107 of 2005
MR ROHAN H.RAVAL APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR J M PANCHAL(529) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR K J PANCHAL(2422)for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SHRIKAR H.BHATT for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 24/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Appeal No.1309 of 2005 is filed
under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
'Cr.P.C.' for short) by the appellant being
accused No.1, who came to be convicted under
Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for
short) by the judgment and order dated 14.06.2005
passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana
in Sessions Case No.70 of 2005.
1.1 The trial was against five of the accused.
The accused No.2, as per jail remarks has already
undergone the sentence. He had been in jail for
about 2 years 8 months and 23 days and came to be
released from jail on 20.02.2008. While accused
Nos.3, 4 and 5 were acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 306, 427 and 506(1)
read with Section 114 of IPC.
1.2 The present appellant as accused No.1 and
accused No.2 were exonerated from the offence
punishable under Sections 427 and 506(1) of the
IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
1.3 Criminal Appeal No.2107 of 2005 is filed by
the State under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. for
enhancement of sentence for the offence
punishable under Sections 306 read with Section
114 of IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2.
2. The prosecution case was that deceased
Satishkumar Ramanlal Tuvar was having his
business in the shop whose original owner is the
present appellant - Patel Gandalal Joitaram.
While accused No.2 - Chauhan Jamnadas Mangilal
was the tenant of accused No.1. Deceased -
Satishkumar Ramanlal Tuvar was in shop in the
status of sub-tenant of accused No.2.
2.1 According to the prosecution case, deceased
had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to accused No.2
as deposit with agreed rent of Rs.500/- per
month, which the deceased was to pay to accused
No.2. The prosecution case is that sub-letting of
the shop was noticed by the present appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
being the owner of the shop, who objected the
deceased as well as accused No.2. There was civil
litigation between the parties on the issue of
sub-letting filed by accused No.2 and the
deceased, against present appellant and his wife.
2.2 The complaint came to be filed by
Sarswatiben wife of deceased on 29.08.2004 with
Mehsana Police Station, which was registered as
Cr.No.I-190/2004. The complaint by her narrated
that she had married deceased 20 years ago and
out of their matrimonial life, they have one son
and one daughter. The husband on 24.08.2004 was
in his shop below 'Bandhan' Hotel, where he was
having his business of repairing Sofa-set cover
and on that day, he consumed poison, and during
the course of his treatment at Ahmedabad Civil
Hospital, he died.
2.3 The complainant stated that the old shop of
her husband was in the line of Ashoka Guest
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
House, Opposite Nagarpur College, where he was
running his work in the shop for about last nine
years. The shop was given as sub-tenant and for
that purpose Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as deposit
(Pagadi) and the rent decided was Rs.500/- for
the shop. The complainant stated that in the
shop, her husband was doing the business of hood-
lining and was manufacturing Sofas. The original
tenant was accused No.2 - Chauhan Jamnadas
Mangilal.
2.4 It was alleged by the complainant that the
present appellant as owner of the shop had forced
her husband to vacate the shop. Thereafter, her
husband had asked to return back the deposit
amount. While taking away the possession, the
complainant alleged that the present appellant
had not returned a single 'paisa' of the 'Pagadi'
amount and had threatened that her husband had to
vacate the shop, therefore, the complainant's
husband had filed a suit in the Mehsana Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
Court and injunction was asked for.
2.5 The complainant stated that on 09.08.2008,
the Court Commissioner was to draw the panchnama,
but prior to that the owner i.e. the present
appellant - Patel Gandalal Joitaram on
07.08.2003, ransacked the goods and materials in
the shop of her husband and had got the shop
vacant. Thereafter, in the Civil Suit No.315/03,
there was an order in their favour. On
15.03.2004, her husband had informed her about
the order and in accordance to the order, her
husband had gone to the present appellant for
demanding the possession of the shop. However, it
is alleged that the appellant was often
threatening her husband and was not handing over
the possession of the property.
2.6 The complainant stated that her husband had
also told her that Jamnadas Mangilal Chauhan -
accused No.2, too was threatening her husband,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
which continued. She further alleged that persons
of Gandalal Joitaram Patel would often come at
the place, which she said was the shop at Bandhan
Hotel and would threaten him. On the night
earlier of the day of incident, her husband had
come home and without taking dinner, he started
crying and told her that Gandalal Joitaram Patel,
Jamnadas Mangilal Chauhan and the persons of
Gandlal would not allow him to live, and any time
there would be big quarrel, the complainant had
tried to pacify deceased saying that they had won
in the Court and that he should not be worried
about it.
2.7 It is alleged that, inspite of that
assurance, her husband sleeping at night, and
thereafter next day in the morning of 24.08.2004,
he reached at 9 O' clock in his new shop at
'Bandhan' Hotel, as he got offended because of
the threat with regard to the shop by Patel
Gandalal Joitaram, Jamnadas Mangilal and his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
persons, he consumed poison and committed
suicide. The incident she said had occurred on
24.08.2004 at about 11:00 in the shop, which he
had rented opposite Nagarpur Highway below Hotel
'Bandhan' and on the basis of the complainant,
she asked for legal process.
3. Learned advocate Mr.K.J. Panchal for the
appellant submitted that the trial itself against
the accused is bad in law. The civil litigation
was pending between the parties and the parties
were bound to follow the judgment of Civil Court.
Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that the deceased
had no right to stay in the property, as deceased
was not the tenant of the appellant and it was
the case of illegal sub-letting, where the suit
was pending between the parties.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Panchal referring to
the cause title of the Regular Civil Suit
No.315/2003 submitted that the suit was filed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
accused No.2 and deceased against the present
appellant and her wife - Manjulaben Gandalal
Patel as defendant Nos.1 and 2. The suit was
filed on 15.12.2003, thus, Mr. Panchal submitted
that there would not be any Court Commissioner
prior to the institution of the suit and the
complainant alleging the Court Commissioner to
come at the shop on 09.08.2003, would stand
falsify on the face of the record. Advocate Mr.
Panchal submitted that deceased had illegally
occupied the suit shop and the suit does not
state that it was deceased, who had given the
deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and also drew the
attention of the Court to the agreement dated
31.07.2003, Exh.21, which was an agreement
between deceased and the wife of the present
appellant, who was defendant No.1 in the suit.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that
the document Exh.21 suggests that deceased
himself had executed the writing and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
endorsement shows that the writing was in
presence of brother of deceased, whereby the
document Exh.21 clarifies that there was no
deposit amount or goodwill amount placed in the
business and that deceased himself had declared
that he had no right, interest or share in the
goodwill or the goods and materials of the shop,
and that defendant No.1 i.e. wife of the present
appellant was entitled to remove the deceased
from being daily wager. Advocate Mr. Panchal,
thus, stated that the agreement Exh.21 and the
suit vide Exh.22 gives a contrary facts than what
has been stated in the complaint.
3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Panchal further stated
that the suit was of 15.12.2003, while the
deceased committed suicide on 24.08.2004, which
is almost after nine months, whereas, as per the
details, the order below Exh.5 was passed on
15.03.2004, which is noted in the complaint.
Advocate Mr. Panchal thus, stated that if the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
order of the Court below Exh.5 as an interim
injunction was in favour of deceased, then he was
entitled to get it executed and thus, submitted
that there was no immediate cause for deceased to
commit suicide nor was any such fact which was
connected with the shop, which was given on rent
to accused No.2, which could have driven the
deceased to commit suicide.
3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Panchal stated that
test for the Court would be to examine whether an
ordinary prudent man in the given circumstances
would have preferred to take this ultimate step
of suicide finding no other alternative for his
life.
3.5 Learned advocate Mr. Panchal further stated
that suicide note though proved in the
handwriting of the deceased is supposed to be a
daily diary maintained by deceased of his work
and thus the probative value of the suicide note
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
has to be examined in connection with the alleged
dispute, which does not bear close proximity to
draw an inference even of any abetment, where the
appellant would have instigated deceased with the
sole intention of driving him to commit suicide.
3.6 Learned advocate Mr. Panchal further
submitted that from the case of the prosecution,
it cannot be presumed that the appellant by his
conduct intended deceased to commit suicide and
it was absolutely a civil dispute, which could
have been resolved only by the Civil Court, and
deceased was required to wait for decision of the
Civil Court, and if at all deceased had any
grievance against the appellant, then he could
have raised it before the Civil Court, when the
lis was still pending.
3.7 Mr. Panchal, learned advocate further hinted
that the suit was filed by the deceased as well
as accused No.2 against the present appellant and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
his wife. If that had been so, there was no
reason for deceased to make any allegation
against the present appellant, even more so,
against accused No.2.
3.8 Advocate Mr. Panchal further stated that
deceased had voluntarily left the place and had
started his business at the place near 'Bandhan'
Hotel and therefore, there was no reason
whatsoever for him to commit suicide, as there
would not have been any case of financial
constraints, and when the admitted position was
that deceased was a sub-tenant of accused No.2,
he was required to ask for the deposit amount
i.e. 'Pagadi' from accused No.2.
3.9 Advocate Mr. Panchal further submitted that
the suit property actually belongs to the wife of
the appellant and she being the owner, a document
Exh.21 was executed prior to filing of the suit.
Mr. Panchal submitted that the prosecution has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
failed to examine the brother - Tikamlal Ramanlal
Tuvar, before whom the document Exh.21 was signed
on 31.07.2003. Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted
that there was no case to be considered as
abetment for the conviction to follow under
Section 306 IPC against the appellant.
4. On behalf of complainant, learned advocate
Mrs.Rekha H.Kapadia had been appointed by the
Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. She
sternly submitted that the suicide note is a
statement of deceased. The expert opinion has
approved the suicide note. The dispute was about
the deposit, which was the 'Pagadi' amount given
to the present appellant and there was continuous
threat by the appellant and his men to deceased,
who had informed the said fact to his wife, the
complainant, and even prior to the date of
suicide, the threat continued upon the appellant
and other co-accused, and that would bring the
case within the provisions of Section 306 of IPC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
for the proximate cause of commission of suicide,
where the abetment would be proved on record of
the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval appearing for the
State submitted that the learned Trial Court
Judge has shown leniency in sentencing the
accused Nos.1 and 2. The continuous
administration of the threat till the date prior
to the commission of suicide has been proved on
record and prima facie case under Sections 306
and 107 of the IPC would get attracted, and when
the case itself proves through the documentary
evidence and the evidence of the complainant,
which is supported by the expert opinion for the
suicide note, no further stricture proof would be
required. Learned APP submitted that gravity of
the case warrants enhancement of the sentence,
which has been passed by the learned Trial Court
Judge.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
6. The prayer in Criminal Appeal No.2107 of 2005
has been made under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. for
enhancing the sentence. The said Section permits
the accused to plead for his acquittal or
reduction of the sentence. Sub-section (3) of
Section 377 reads as under:-
"(3) When an appeal has been filed against
the sentence on the ground of its
inadequacy, the Court of Session 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."
7. The prosecution examined Doctor Arvind
Kantilal Kapadia - P.W.1, who stated that on
24.08.2004, when he was at General Hospital,
Mehsana at 1:00 in the afternoon the patient
Satishkumar Ramanlal Tuvar, aged about 40 years
was brought by neighbour Maheshbhai Gowardanbhai
Patel with the history that he had consumed some
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
liquid. The patient was unconscious. The witness
had examined the patient, he examined the blood
pressure and also checked the nerves. The retina
of the eyes had constrained, which was reacting
against the light. The patent was examined by the
full time physician of General Hospital, Mehsana,
who had given the treatment and when the
situation was found grave, the patient was
transferred to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad at 14:00
hours in the afternoon. The fact was informed to
the concerned police constable for recording
dying declaration. The witness stated that the
gastric lavage was preserved. The certificate he
produced at Exh.14 is in relation to deceased.
7.1 P.W.2 - Doctor Chandrakant Bachubhai Patel
was performing his duty in the postmortem room at
Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad on 24.08.2004 and as
per his testimony, on that day, about 5:30,
A.S.I. Buckle No.4710 had brought dead body of
Satishkumar Ramanlal Tuvar. The details narrated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
in the postmortem report refers that the initial
treatment was given at Mehsana Civil Hospital and
on transfer for further treatment, he was brought
to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital and on examination by
the C.M.O. Doctor, he was declared dead at 16:15
hours. The postmortem was conducted at 5:45 in
the evening, which got concluded at 6:45. The
Doctor stated that the deceased on 24.08.2004 had
consumed some poisonous substance at about 11 O'
clock near Mehsana 'Bandhan' Hotel and the
preliminary treatment was given at Mehsana Civil
Hospital and thereafter with T.C. Memo for
further treatment, the patient was brought to
Ahmedabad Civil Hospital at 4:15 hours.
7.2 The cause of death, after referring to
F.S.L. report Doctor stated the Malathion Oragano
Phosphorous was found in liquid and the cause of
death was consumption of poisonous substance. The
P.M. report he produced in evidence at Exh.16.
The Doctor affirmed that Oragano Phosphorous was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
one type of chemical and as per the Doctor if
rotten food is consumed, then chemical reaction
would take place in the body, which damages the
vital part, or the consumption of such poisonous
substance may be accidental. The Doctor did not
find any injury on the external part of mouth or
on lips of the deceased.
8. The prosecution has not brought on record
the details regarding purchase of the
insecticide. As per Doctor such substance could
be found in the rotten food materials, which
would have the chemical effect and ultimately
damage the vital part of the body. Whether the
consumption was accidental or intentional, was
required to be proved. The sample mark-A was
shown to be an iron box of fertilizer, which was
containing 10 ml. reddish brown colour liquid,
which was seized in presence of the panchas by
the police, which was having a peculiar stench.
The police was required to further investigate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
regarding the purchase of insecticide, which was
seized. How the deceased came in possession of
such insecticide was required to be proved.
9. The complainant as P.W.3 has reiterated the
facts, as have been stated in the complaint.
According to the complainant, her husband was in
Sofa lining business. The shop was opposite
Gulpur Bus Stand, beside Ashoka Guest House. The
complainant stated that Rs.1,00,000/- 'Pagadi'
was given to accused No.2 - Chauhan Jamnadas
Mangilal and Rs.500/- monthly rent was paid by
her husband. The complainant identified accused
No.2 - Jamnadas in the Court. She further stated
that the present appellant was owner of the shop
and according to the complainant, the owner of
the shop i.e. appellant - Patel Gandalal Joitaram
had given the shop to accused No.2 - Chauhan
Jamnadas Mangilal and accused No.2 had given the
shop to her husband.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
10. Learned advocate Mr.Shrikar H.Bhatt for
respondent No.2 stated that the deposition of the
complainant is contrary to the pleadings of the
suit, where the learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for
respondent No.2 in the appeal filed by the State,
submitted that Regular Civil Suit No.315/03 was
filed by deceased as well as accused No.2
together against the owner of the property, who
were Manjulaben Gandalal Patel and Gandalal
Joitaram Patel and both, the deceased as well as
accused No.2 as plaintiff had made the pleading
that both of them had taken the suit property
being Shop No.17 from the defendants in the year
1994 at the monthly rent of Rs.500/- and had paid
Rs.1,00,000/- as 'Pagadi' to the defendants, and
lastly the defendants had given the rent receipt
on 01.01.2000, and since the value of the
property escalated, the defendants under one or
other pretext were trying to dispossess the
plaintiff and had got document Exh.21 executed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
10.1 Learned advocate Mr.Shrikar H.Bhatt stated
that Exh.21 was executed without the knowledge of
accused No.2, who was plaintiff No.1 of the suit.
Mr. Bhatt submitted that the lack of timely legal
advice had led to incarceration of accused No.2
in jail, otherwise there was no case of
conviction. Thus, submitted that no case of State
for enhancement of sentence would stand against
the respondents.
11. The evidence of the complainant, on
appreciation could be found that it runs contrary
to what has been pleaded in the Regular Civil
suit No.315/2003, Exh.5 injunction application
which was placed on record at Exh.23 of the
trial.
12. Learned Trial Court Judge by referring to
the evidence of P.W.3 i.e. the complainant
coupled with the evidence of panchas came to the
conclusion that deceased Satishkumar Ramanlal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
Tuvar was not sick and that he had not died a
natural death. The charge of the complainant was
that her husband had committed suicide. The
learned Judge relying on the evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2, observed that the witnesses, as
experts have authenticated that the death of
Satishkumar Ramanlal Tuvar is neither homicidal
nor natural, but that he passed away because of
consumption of poisonous substance.
13. The Investigating Officer while visiting the
place of incident has collected the bottle of the
poisonous substance, which the deceased had
consumed and the learned Judge while relying upon
the evidence of P.W.8 - Mangalsinh Vaghela
Exh.35, P.W.7 - Abaashkhan Imtiyajkhan Exh.34 and
P.W.1 and P.W.2, the doctors, considering them as
public servants observed that they would not have
any personal bias against the accused nor would
they be inimical to the accused, would have no
reason to falsely deposed against them and thus,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
considered the death as suicidal.
14. The evidence of the complainant, as P.W.3
on facts further records that the shop was on the
rent basis for about 10 years and thereafter, the
present appellant had got the shop vacated and
had taken away the goods and material. The value
of the material the plaintiff assessed as one and
half lakh and according to her, the goods in the
shop was forcibly taken away. The deceased
demanded Rs.1,00,000/- back, which was given as
'Pagadi' to accused No.2 - Chauhan Jamnadas
Mangilal, but the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
was never returned back.
14.1 The complainant further states that till
the date of complaint, neither the amount of
deposit nor the value of the goods have been
returned back to her. The possession of the shop
was taken away by accused No.1, the present
appellant, under threat. She voluntarily stated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
that the case was instituted by them, which was
in progress. As per the complainant, the death of
husband occurred on 30.08.2004 and the cause was
consumption of some medicine stating that her
husband was not ill.
14.2 The complainant in her deposition stated
that five of them were threatening her husband.
Accused No.1 i.e. the present appellant was
threatening uttering that he would kill all five
of them. Accused would come at the shop to
threaten as well as would visit the house to
threaten them. The complainant further stated in
the deposition that whenever the husband would
come back home, he used to talk about the threat
to do away with the life and he used to cry. She
named Gandalal Joitaram, Jamnadas, Paresh Patel,
Ashwin Patel and Aakashbhai, who were threatening
the deceased. She further clarified that she was
unaware as to why Patel Pareshbhai Ashwinbhai and
Aakashbhai were threatening her husband. However,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
her husband would tell her and had referred their
names. As per the complainant version being fed
up of all the harassment, the husband had
committed suicide at the new shop, where the rent
of the shop was Rs.1500/- per month and no
deposit was paid for the shop. At the time of
incident, the complainant was at Visnagar on her
job. The complainant identified her complaint
Exh.18.
14.3 As per further deposition of the
complainant, prior to the death, the husband had
made a writing. During the course of trial, the
seal packet was opened where from a notebook was
shown to the complainant, which was put in
evidence at Exh.19, marked as B/1, and mark A/1
and A1/1/7 to 14 were also put in evidence at
Exh.20.
14.4 In the cross-examination, the witness stated
that her husband was sitting at the shop for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
about 10 years. Her husband had given
Rs.1,00,000/- as 'Pagadi' to accused No.2, while
there was no partnership agreement. The rent was
Rs.500/- per month. She denied the suggestion
that there was partnership agreement dated
10.09.1988 of her husband with accused No.2.
However, she affirmed that in the shop, accused
No. 2 and her husband were doing various
businesses. She had deposed that her husband had
also given a complaint to D.S.P. alleging that
accused No.2 would usurp the shop. The complaint
was filed by her husband along with accused No.2.
During the course of cross-examination, the copy
of Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.315/03 was put
in evidence at Exh.23.
14.5 In the cross-examination, it has come on
record that the shop, which was at the another
place, referring to the place below 'Bandhan'
Hotel, where deceased committed suicide,
complainant stated that her husband was running
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
the shop there for last 8 to 9 months and during
that period, her husband was attending the Court
along with accused No.2. She denied the
suggestion that accused No.2 had not threatened
her husband and also denied the suggestion that
since her husband was in debts, therefore, fed up
of life had committed suicide. The diary at
Exh.19 and 20 was procured from the shop. She
denied of having seen her husband writing diary
at home. She also affirmed that in the complaint,
the names of accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 were not
given.
14.6 The evidence of the complainant, therefore,
clarifies that deposit amount was taken by
accused No.2 - Chauhan Jamnadas Maginlal, while
present appellant had no connection with the
deposit amount. The suit was filed by accused
No.2 and the deceased jointly as plaintiffs
against the present appellant and his wife. The
attempt appears to have been made by accused No.2
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
along with deceased to file a complaint against
the appellant in view of the fact that the
appellant had taken an objection with regard to
sub-letting of the shop property.
14.7 Further fact that emerges is that the
deceased was working in the shop for about 10
years. So the amount as stated to be a 'Pagadi'
years prior. Accused No.2 took deceased in the
shop property, whether it was partnership or sub-
letting is an issue to be decided by the Civil
Court. However, prima facie the fact remains that
the appellant had no connection whatsoever with
the 'Pagadi' amount. The suit was filed by the
accused No.2 and the deceased. The writing, which
is in form of Exh.21 is between the deceased and
the wife of the present appellant dated
31.07.2003. The deceased consumed poison on
24.08.2004, which would also be almost about an
year from writing Exh.21. Thus, the act of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
deceased to commit suicide would also have no
direct bearing to document Exh.21.
14.8 As recorded earlier, accused No.2 has
already served the sentence. He had not preferred
any appeal against the judgment of conviction.
15. The writings of the deceased is not a
disputed fact. The opinion of the expert, as
P.W.6 - Darshanbhai Maganlal Patel is on record.
The handwriting expert has given the details of
his course of examination of the handwriting.
Nothing substantial could be brought on record by
way of cross-examination to defy the handwriting
of deceased. The opinion of the Assistant
Examiner of Questioned Documents, H.P.B., F.S.L.,
G.S., Gandhinagar is as under:
"I have carefully and thoroughly
examined the original documents of this
case in all respects of handwriting
identification, detection of forgery and
allied subject, with necessary scientific
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
aids in my laboratory at Gandhinagar.
My opinion that "the red encircled
disputed writings marked 'D1, D2 and the
red encircled natural writings marked 'N1,
N1/1 to N1/19 are written by one and the
same person", is based upon the following
considerations.
Both the disputed and natural writings
agree in general writing characteristics
such as movement which is hand predominant
with some action of finger, line quality is
free, smooth and normal, speed-medium and
in skill spacing, alignment, slant,
relative size and proportion of letters.
The disputed writings also agree with
the natural writings, in minute and
inconspicuous details of formation of
letters and their combinations. Some of
such individual features are, movement in
execution of first Gujarati letter...
...
...
... The natural and disputed writings are
found similarly at one or the other place
in nature writings. The natural and
disputed writings are consistent, no signs
of disguise or imitation in disputed
writings, they are freely written,
containing suitable and sufficient data for
examination and comparison between disputed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
and natural writings. I do not find any
basic difference except(sic) the natural
variations. Some of the features of
similarities as mentioned above are found
suitable and sufficient. In short all the
significant features as occurring in
disputed writing are found similarly at one
or the other place in the natural writings
and will not accidentally coincide in the
writing of two different persons but are
only due to common authorship. All these
considerations lead me to the aforesaid
opinion."
15.1 If the document is to be considered as
suicide note, then the diary is the one which was
maintained by the deceased for writing accounts
of his business. The first page of Exh.19 is
expressing his repentance towards the parents,
brother and other family members and asked for
forgiveness and had prayed for pardoning him
stating that he had caused great pain to them.
Further, he has referred to the Bank of Baroda
Certificate and the place where he had kept the
same. Second page of Exh.19 referred to the names
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
of persons stating that because of them, he had
to commit suicide. He has referred to the names
as (1) Paresh Naranabhai Patel (2) Ashwin
Narayanbhai Patel and referring to their
accomplice as Aakash Chaudhary, resident of
Mahalaxmi Society, Radhanpur Road, as V.B.
Financewala. Thereafter, he has named the present
appellant, as well as accused No.2 with the
endorsement that both of them had cheated him for
the amount of Rs.1,80,000/-.
15.2 The Trial Court Judge, while considering
the suicide note has acquitted accused Nos.3 to
5. The observation of the learned Trial Court
Judge in Para-14 is as under.
"14. As this Court has arrived to a
conclusion that deceased Satishkumar
Ramanlal Tuvar has died suicidal death, the
question remains to be adjudicated whether
the accused persons are responsible for the
suicidal death of the deceased Satishkumar
Ramanalal Tuvar. It is the case of
prosecution that deceased Satishkumar
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
Ramanlal Tuvar was given threat constantly
by the accused persons. Before this Court
may enter into merits and demerits of the
case, it is pertinent to note here that
prosecution has not been able to lead any
evidence suggesting the involvement of
accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5. P.W.3 -
Sarasvatiben Satishkumar Tuvar - Exh.17 has
only deposed that accused persons were
coming and causing threat to the deceased
but at what time and on which day and for
what reason the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 has
given threat to the deceased has not been
disclosed by the Sarasvatiben. Other than
this the prosecution has not lead any
evidence warranting the involvement of
accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 having nexus with the
commission of crime and in these
circumstances when the reliable, trust
worthy evidence is not coming forth on
record regarding role played by the accused
Nos.3, 4 and 5, then this Court is left with
no option except to record acquittal of the
accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 for the charges
leveled against them."
15.3 While considering the threats administered
by all the accused, learned Trial Court Judge was
of an opinion that the prosecution has not been
able to lead any evidence suggesting the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
involvement of accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 and that
the complainant only stated that the accused
persons were coming and causing threat to
deceased, but the complainant has failed to state
about any time or day or the reason to connect
accused Nos.3, 4 and 5, who were alleged to have
given threat to deceased. Learned Judge was also
of an opinion that the prosecution has not laid
any evidence warranting involvement of accused
Nos.3 to 5, nor the nexus with the commission of
crime and the circumstances which would be
considered as reliable and trustworthy are not
proved on record. Hence, the reasons given by the
learned Trial Court Judge prompted the Judge to
record the acquittal of accused Nos.3, 4 and 5.
15.4 While considering the evidence with regard
to the present appellant, as well as accused
No.2, the Trial Court Judge on the factual aspect
had observed that accused No.2 was not authorized
or empowered by any law to sublet the shop, which
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
was owned by the present appellant - accused
No.1. It was further observed that there was no
specific agreement authorizing accused No.2 to
sublet the shop to any person. The Trial Court
Judge observed that accused No.2 was having the
knowledge and was fully aware of the fact that
neither he is the owner of the shop, nor he can
sublet the shop. Inspite of that fact, he had
sublet the shop to deceased - Satishkumar
Ramanlal Tuvar.
15.5 Further observation of the learned Judge
was that accused No.2 persuaded the deceased to
part with the handsome amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as
a consideration of subletting the shop, and that
he was not satisfied with the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- and had also asked deceased to pay
rent of Rs.500 in addition to sum of
Rs.100,000/-. The deceased need was considered as
dire and therefore, had surrendered to the
illegal act of accused No.2 and had handed over
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and was also regularly
paying rent of Rs.500/- per month to accused
No.2, though accused No.2 was not entitled to
receive the same, as the said act was not
recognized by law. The observation of the learned
Trial Court Judge was that photocopy of the
document rendered in evidence was not proved, as
per the provisions of Evidence Act, finally
concluded that the deceased was shuttled between
accused Nos.1 and 2.
15.6 It was further observed that deceased had
assisted accused No.1 by executing the deed and
handed over the possession of the shop on paper
to accused No.1 on 09.08.2003 and immediately,
thereafter, he has been misused or used by the
accused No.2 by filing the complaint or lodging
the civil litigation observing, inter alia, that
his signatures were taken on paper by deceitful
means.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
15.7 The learned Judge, thus, appreciating the
evidence of the complainant formed an opinion
that her evidence revealed that accused No.2 had
been receiving rent of the shop for the last 10
years, and that accused No.2 was not legally
authorized to collect the rent of shop from the
deceased. It was further observed that accused
No.2 had raised a plea that deceased was the
partner of his firm, which fact was negated by
the complainant. The Trial Court, thus, observed
that deceased was not a partner, but was a sub-
tenant to the shop and deceased was induced in
the property by deceit means by accused No.2 and
for the access in the shop, consideration of
Rs.1,00,000/- was taken, therefore, accused No.2
was knowing and was fully aware that his act was
not recognized by the law. The learned Judge,
thus, was of an opinion that the omission of the
legal act would amount to word 'aid' as mentioned
in Section 107 of the IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
15.8 The learned Trial Court Judge was of the
opinion that it was accused No.2, who had taken
money from the deceased and the act of accused
No.2 for his omission to do legal act was
considered as an instigation in the form of aid
as defined under Section 107 of the IPC.
Referring to the deposition of the complainant,
the learned Judge considered that accused No.2
had created such a situation by which the
deceased Satishkumar Ramanlal Tuvar was left with
no option except to commit suicide.
15.9 With reference to writing of Exh.19, the
learned Judge was of an opinion that prosecution
succeeded in bringing the guilt of accused Nos.1
and 2. The learned Trial Court Judge recorded
that accused No.2 had deceived the deceased in
receiving Rs.1,00,000/- and on the other hand,
accused No.1 took advantage of the illegal act,
omission and commission of accused No.2. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
accused No.2 and deceased were dispossessed from
the shop. The deceased was ousted from the shop
and when he had asked for his legal dues, he was
refused by accused No.2. Not only that, but he
was threatened by accused No.2, and accused No.1
did not return the possession of the shop.
15.10 Learned Judge considered the deceased as a
man of lesser means, who could hardly manage the
affairs of the family without having any room for
carrying out the business and when accused No.2
refused to return back the money and when accused
No.1 ousted him from the shop, there was none to
render assistance to deceased, and in such a
situation, the person cannot afford financial
crisis, where the children are to be fed and the
wife is to be maintained, and sufficient funds
were required even for schooling of the children
and the family, and if the persons put in such a
situation wherein he neither can earn nor can
receive his lawful dues, the tense question,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
which the learned Judge found, would be before
deceased how to survive in a selfish world and
thus on assumption, the learned Judge considered
that to be the reason deceased - Satishkumar
Ramanlal Tuvar had written the last words that he
has been cheated by accused Nos.2 and 1 to the
tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. The amount was considered
as handsome and big and on the ground that he was
cheated, deceived and refused and neglected
besides being threatened not supported by any
civil authority, the learned Judge was of an
opinion that not only person like deceased, but
person having good sound mind would be driven to
commit suicide, and the acts, omissions and
was considered to be of such a nature, which
drove deceased to leave this world leaving behind
his wife and children.
16. These observations of the learned Judge in
background of the fact that civil suit was filed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
appears to be misplaced and misinterpreted. The
facts on record also found by way of complaint as
well as deposition of the complainant that the
deceased was already in a new shop with his
business, where he committed suicide, which was
the shop below 'Bandhan' Hotel. He was there in
the shop for the last 8 to 9 months. Thus, it is
not the case that he was not having his own
source of income. It is also not the case of the
complainant that they were starving, or deceased
was not having any earning from his business,
where the fact was brought on record that he was
doing the work of Sofa lining.
16.1 Further the fact of giving threat through
the accomplice of accused No.1 i.e. the present
appellant has not been believed by the learned
Judge. Accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 have been
acquitted. What was the relation of deceased with
Aakash Chaudhary, who was of V.B. Finance, was
not proved on record. Whether the deceased was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
under debts by way of some financial loan was not
proved on record. The figure of Rs.1,80,000/- was
also not proved since the allegation was only of
the 'Pagadi' amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The
cheating of Rs.1,80,000/- was required to be
proved by the prosecution, while the complainant
had not explained such a fact in her testimony.
She had never seen the present appellant coming
at her home. It is not that the police had
conducted any Test Identification Parade for rest
of the accused, and when present appellant had
never visited the house of deceased and when
record itself suggests that deceased was doing
his business at another place for the last 8 to 9
months which was below 'Bandhan' Hotel, the
direct connection of the present appellant
inducing the deceased to give away the rented
shop property, does not get proved.
16.2 The fact of dispossessing deceased from the
shop by the present appellant was also not proved
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
on record. Exh.21 is by the wife of the
appellant, who was the owner of the shop executed
with the deceased, and the document dated
31.07.2003 would have no connection with the act
of the deceased committing suicide on 24.08.2004.
The direct proximate and immediate nexus of
connecting the present appellant with the act of
deceased has not been proved. The observation of
the learned Judge that it was an illegal act,
omission and commission of accused No.2, whose
advantage accused No.1 took also does not get
proved. When the civil suit was still pending how
it could be believed to conclude that the
appellant - accused No.1 took disadvantage of
illegal act, omission and commission of accused
No.2.
16.3 The observation of the learned Judge that
deceased was ousted from the shop also does get
proved on record, since Regular Civil Suit
No.315/03 was still in progress before the Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
as deposed by the complainant, and if at all
during the pendency of the suit, deceased opted
to have his business in another property, then it
was his own self-decision. Nothing could be
brought on record of any forceful dispossession
by the present appellant or the accused No.2,
when the deceased had not made any complaint
before the Civil Judge by filing an application.
The observation of Trial Court is merely on
inferences, while such observations were not
fortified by any cogent evidence on record. Even
the complaint of the wife was on assumption,
where she had tried to involve all the persons
apart from accused Nos.1 and 2, to state that all
the accused were threatening deceased. The factum
of Court Commissioner visiting the shop property
was also not proved, to establish that the goods
and materials in the shop were ransacked and
plundered or being thrown away or usurped by the
appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
17. 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, as referred by learned Advocate Mr.
Panchal, where 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 State of West Bengal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73.
17.1 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. Mere allegation of
harassment would not suffice unless any proximate
act on the part of the accused to be considered
as instigation, which compelled the person to
commit suicide is proved. Instigation means to
goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage
to do an act. The question of mens rea on the
part of the accused would have to be examined
with reference to the actual acts and deeds of
the accused.
18. In the case of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana ,
(2019) 17 SCC 301, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
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..."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
18.1 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. What
becomes instigation is explained in the judgment
of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [2001
(9) SCC 618] .
18.2 In Ramesh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that, where the accused by his
acts or by a continued course of conduct creates
such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option but to commit suicide, an
"instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in
order to prove that the accused abetted
commission of suicide by a person, it has to be
established that -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying
the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission
or conduct which may even be a willful silence
until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced
the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful
omission or conduct to make the deceased move
forward more quickly in a forward direction, and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to
provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit
suicide while acting in the manner noted above.
Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the
necessary concomitant of instigation.
18.3 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
meaning of "instigation". Para-20 of the said
judgment reads 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
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.
18.4 The factum of dying declaration in the
form of letter was examined in the case of Pawan
Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2017) 7 SCC
780. The scope of the words 'abetment' and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
'instigate' have been considered, which had been
reproduced in Para-43 and 44, which are
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"43. Keeping in view the aforesaid
legal position, we are required to
address whether there has been abetment
in committing suicide. Be it clearly
stated that mere allegation of
harassment without any positive action
in proximity to the time of occurrence
on the part of the accused that led a
person to commit suicide, a conviction
in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable. A casual remark that is
likely to cause harassment in ordinary
course of things will not come within
the purview of instigation. A mere
reprimand or a word in a fit of anger
will not earn the status of abetment.
There has to be positive action that
creates a situation for the victim to
put an end to life.
44. In the instant case, the accused
had by his acts and by his continuous
course of conduct created such a
situation as a consequence of which the
deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide. The active
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
acts of the accused have led the
deceased to put an end to her life...."
19. In the present case, the learned Trial Court
Judge had observed that the accused No.2 had
illegally let deceased in the property of the
appellant. The amount, as stated to be 'Pagdi'
was given by deceased to accused No.2. The
document Exh.21 was executed between deceased and
the wife of the appellant, which was also one
year prior to the act of commission of suicide.
There was no such proximate act, which could be
ascribed to the appellant to be considered as any
cause for abetment. The allegation of threatening
deceased through the accomplice of the appellant
was also not proved. Accused Nos.3 and 5 were
acquitted. The complainant had no occasion of
seeing appellant coming to her house and
threatening deceased. The appellant had submitted
to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the
Regular Civil Suit No.315/03, which was filed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
accused No.2 and deceased. There was no reason
for appellant to even threaten deceased. If the
fact is read combined with the evidence on record
it appears that, since 8 to 9 months the deceased
was having his own business at the shop below
'Bandhan' Hotel. It was not the case that
deceased was suffering vagrancy. The complainant
herself was doing job, and she had not stated
anything about financial distress suffered by
deceased. The fact of Rs.1,80,000/-, as alleged
to be cheated by accused Nos.1 and 2, has not
been proved during the trial. How such amount has
been noted in the suicide note and how that
amount could be connected with the present
appellant could not be proved during the trial.
20. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
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."
21. The deceased appears to have been distressed
by his own circumstances. It was not that he had
no other alternative to have his own source of
livelihood, rather it has come on record that
since last 8 to 9 months, he was having his
business at the shop below 'Bandhan' Hotel. What
was the cause of pain or the loss was not proved
on record. As aptly stated by learned advocate
Mr. Panchal that the test would be whether the
ordinary prudent person in similar situation
would have found no other alternative, but to
commit suicide. Keeping that yardstick to examine
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
the evidence on record, similarly situated person
would not have committed any such act, where he
already was having his own business and that the
family was not in such a position to have been
left helpless, more so, when a Civil Suit was
filed. The recourse was already adopted by
deceased by filing a Civil Suit.
22. With reference to the suicide note, where
all accused have been named in the diary,
however, no reference have been made of any act
or incident, which could be considered as willful
act or omission or intentionally aiding or
instigating deceased to commit the act of
suicide. There is nothing on record, which could
say of any conspiracy between accused Nos.1 and
2, rather the suit was filed by accused Nos.2 and
the deceased against the appellant. Reference has
been made, of Rs.1,80,000/- alleging that accused
Nos.1 and 2 had cheated him with that amount.
There is no further mention of threat
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
administered by accused Nos.1 and 2 in the
suicide note. No specific incident or act of
accused Nos.1 and 2 had been mentioned in the
suicide note, to be even considered as any act
directly connecting the suicide. No evidence was
found against accused Nos.3 to 5. They were
attributed the role of threatening the deceased.
Accused Nos.3 to 5 names were mentioned in
suicide note, they came to be acquitted by the
Trial Court and State has not preferred any
appeal against their acquittal.
23. In the case of Mohit Singhal And Another Vs.
State of Uttarakhand And Ors., (2024) 1 SCC 417,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"7. The suicide note records that the third
respondent had borrowed a sum of
Rs.60,000/-. According to the deceased, he
had paid more than half of the amount to
Sandeep. The suicide note records that as he
could not pay the rest of the money, the
first appellant came to his house and
started abusing him. He stated that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
first appellant had assaulted him, and
therefore, he complained to the police. He
further noted that the business of giving
money on interest was prospering. He stated
that the third respondent is not a prudent
woman, and due to her habit of intoxication
and due to her conduct, she got trapped in
this. In the suicide note, it is further
stated that the first appellant has made his
life a hell.
9. Section 306 of the IPC makes abetment
to commit suicide as an offence. Section 107
of the IPC, which defines the abetment of a
thing, reads thus:
"Section 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing."
10. In the present case, taking the
complaint of the third respondent and the
contents of the suicide note as correct, it
is impossible to conclude that the
appellants instigated the deceased to commit
suicide by demanding the payment of the
amount borrowed by the third respondent from
her husband by using abusive language and by
assaulting him by a belt for that purpose.
The said incident allegedly happened more
than two weeks before the date of suicide.
There is no allegation that any act was done
by the appellants in the close proximity to
the date of suicide. By no stretch of the
imagination, the alleged acts of the
appellants can amount to instigation to
commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the
third respondent for landing in trouble due
to her bad habits."
24. In the case of State Of Kerala And Ors. Vs
S.Unnikrishnan Nair And Ors., 2015 (9) SCC 639,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the case
of Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal , (2005) 2
SCC 659, while dealing with the concept of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
abetment under Section 107 of I.P.C. and,
especially, in the context of suicide note, held
as under:
"In the suicide note, except referring
to the name of the appellant at two places,
there is no reference of any act or
incidence whereby the appellant herein is
alleged to have committed any wilful act or
omission or intentionally aided or
instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in
committing the act of suicide. There is no
case that the appellant has played any part
or any role in any conspiracy, which
ultimately instigated or resulted in the
commission of suicide by deceased Pranab
Kumar Nag.
25. In the present case, the suicide note does
not state of any continuous case of harassment.
The reference of cheating of Rs.1,80,000/- is
also not proved. If the suicide note (Exh.19) has
to be read, then the cause for committing suicide
has not been mentioned, however, deceased has
referred names of the persons, who he thought to
be responsible for his act of suicide. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
suicide note at Exh.19 on page No.2, appears to
be in two parts. The first part refers to his
cause of suicide referring to the names of Paresh
Narayanbhai Patel, Ashwin Narayanbhai Patel and
his accomplice Aakash Chaudhary, who was V.B.
Finance. While referring to accused Nos.1 and 2,
deceased had noted that both the persons have
cheated him for the amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The
suicide note does not state that that the cause
for suicide were accused Nos.1 and 2.
25.1 The payment of 'Pagadi' of Rs.1,00,000/-
was an incident, which had occurred 10 years
prior to the civil suit, which itself also would
not have any direct connection with the cause of
suicide. On record, it appears that accused No.2
had rather assisted the deceased for filing
Regular Civil Suit No.315/03. What was the reason
for shifting to a new shop below 'Bandhan' Hotel,
would have been known only to deceased, while the
complainant has failed to explain it and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
suicide note does not refer to it. It was not
that deceased had no alternative to start his
business on being vacated from the shop, and even
if he was ordered to vacate the possession of the
shop by the Court, or during that process of
pendency of the suit, deceased vacates the shop,
it could not be considered as any illegal
dispossession. Nothing has come on record to
state that deceased was forcibly driven out of
the property, which is the suit property of
Regular Civil Suit No.315/03.
26. Though, accused No.2 has already undergone
the sentence, this Court does not find any reason
for enhancing the sentence of accused No.2.
Rather, the evidence on record proves that there
was no any instigation from the side of both the
accused and more specifically of the present
appellant for considering the case under Section
107 of the IPC as an abetment, where nothing is
proved that both the accused had continuously
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
harassed deceased with criminal mentality
provoking him to commit suicide.
26.1 In Abhinav Mohan Delkar (Supra), 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
intention, mens rea, to drive another person
to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding
of abetment under Section 306.
27. In the case under Section 306 IPC, mere
allegation of harassment of deceased by another
person would not suffice unless such an act or
action on part of the accused would be proved,
which could be shown to have compelled deceased
to commit suicide and such an act is required to
be proximate to the time of occurrence. As could
be gathered from the facts and circumstances of
the case and evaluation of the evidence on record
and even by re-examination of evidence, such kind
of facts and circumstances do not emerge on
record to consider that there was any harassment
from the side of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the
commission of suicide by deceased, quite
proximate to the date of suicide.
28. In the case of Prakash Vs. State of
Maharashtra, [2024 INSC 1020], the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
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."
29. The prosecution has failed to show any
ground for enhancement of sentence, rather the
appellant has proved the case that it was not any
case of abetment to suicide to attract the
ingredients of Section 107 of IPC to be
punishable under Section 306 IPC. As observed
hereinabove with the analysis of the evidence,
though all the five accused were named in the
suicide note, the note does not refer to any such
act direct or indirect of the accused, which
could be considered as an instigation by the
accused for the deceased having no other option,
but to commit suicide. The circumstances and the
acts attributed to the present appellant as well
as accused No.2, even as respondents in the State
appeal do not prove any proximate cause for the
deceased to commit suicide.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
30. In view of the above observations and
discussions, Criminal Appeal No.1309 of 2005 is
allowed and Criminal Appeal No.2107 of 2005 filed
by the State is dismissed. The conviction and
sentence of the appellant accused dated
14.06.2005 passed by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.70 of 2005 is
hereby set aside. Bail bond, if any, stand
discharged. Registry is directed to send the
Record and Proceedings back to the concerned
Trial Court forthwith.
31. In the operative order, the Trial Court had
passed the order for the fine amount, which was
ordered as Rs.2,50,000/- each for accused Nos.1
and 2.
31.1 Thus, now in view of the acquittal of
accused No.1 i.e. the present appellant, the
amount of fine of Rs.2,50,000/-, as ordered by
the learned Trial Court Judge and to be deposited
in the name of Sarasvatiben Satishmumar Tuvar and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1309/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
her three children with the Nationalised Bank or
Post office be returned back to the appellant on
proper verification of identity. The interest
amount received by the complainant and her
children need not be recovered. Hence, amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- be handed over to the appellant.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/1 (Suppl.-I)
