[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Sulemanbhai Paulbhai Dabhi vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 227 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SULEMANBHAI PAULBHAI DABHI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AS ASTHAVADI(3698) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR RAXIT J DHOLAKIA(3709) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 06/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1) By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
"Cr.P.C"), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside
of the judgment and order dated 16.02.2026 passed by learned 6 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, below Exh:6 and thereby
discharge the applicants from the Sessions Case No.93/2017.
2) Heard Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned counsel for the applicants,
Mr.Rohan Raval, learned APP for the respondent - State and Mr. Raxit
J. Dholakia, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
3) Brief facts narrated in the complaint are that the applicants accused
are employees of the Government of India i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited (BSNL), whereas, the deceased Chhotabhai Dhulabhai Parmar
was also working with the BSNL from 1983 onward and was
transferred to Uttarsanda Telephone Exchange in the year 1996. The
said deceased Chhotabhai died on 29.07.2008 due to consuming
poison and found near Railway Crossing, Uttarsanda in a position,
wherein he had consumed poison and therefore he was taken to the
Civil Hospital, Nadiad in ambulance and thereafter, he was taken to
Maha Gujarat, Hospital, where he was declared dead. It is alleged in
the complaint that the deceased decided to end his life due to
harassment from the accused herein as the accused were giving
memos to the deceased time and again in view of official work, and
therefore the deceased remained under tension, which compelled
him to commit suicide. Pursuant to the same, FIR being C.R.
No.137/2009 was registered at Chaklasi Police Station, under
Sections 306, 106, 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the
applicants. Charge sheet came to be filed. The applicants thereafter
Misc Criminal Application No.14173 of 2009 before this Court, which
came to be withdrawn by the accused with a liberty to file discharge
application before the trial Court. In view of the said liberty granted
by this Court, the applicants preferred an application for discharge,
which was dismissed by learned trail Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, no ingredients
of abetment to commit suicide or any evidence, directly or indirectly,
suggest the involvement of the applicants. The applicants - accused
have not incited the deceased for committing suicide, and no
ingredients of Sections 306, 106 and 109 of the IPC are made out.
Based on the statement of relatives, no offense is made out qua
abetment. It clearly reveals that the deceased was an employee of
BSNL, and as per the office record, no single memo or charge sheet
was issued to the deceased. It is further submitted that the
complainant only issued a correspondence on 1/4/2008, which was
also subsequently sent to the office. Merely one employee of BSNL,
Mr. Kamlesh has given a statement that accused No.2 was a superior
officer and has given 10 to 12 memos and used to harass other
subordinate employees, having no relevance to the case of the
applicants. Merely the applicants were superior officers, and due to
this reason, it cannot be said that they have instigated the deceased,
being subordinate and incited him to commit suicide. The accused
have performed their official duty in the Government hierarchy; being
a higher officer is required to take/supervise the subordinate staff
and to take work from them. Hence, in such submissions, learned
Counsel for the applicants have submitted that the present revision
application be allowed as prayed for.
5) Learned advocate for the complainant has strongly opposed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
present application and submitted that the case is not a simple case
of mere subordination or routine workplace issues. It is contended
that the involvement of the applicants is clearly borne out from the
material collected during the investigation. It is further submitted
that the deceased had been serving with BSNL since 1983 and was
transferred to Uttarsanda in the year 1986. The deceased ultimately
committed suicide on 29.07.2008 on account of continuous
harassment allegedly caused by the accused persons. During the
course of investigation conducted pursuant to the accidental death
proceedings under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C, the son of the deceased
discovered a communication dated 01.07.2008 addressed by the
deceased to the higher authorities, wherein allegations regarding the
misbehavior and ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons
were specifically made. It is the case of the complainant that, as the
deceased had raised his voice against such harassment, the higher
officers, in collusion with the contractor and bearing grudge against
him, continued to harass the deceased, which ultimately drove him to
commit suicide. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that
the present revision applications do not deserve consideration and
are liable to be dismissed, as sufficient material has been collected
during the investigation, warranting that the applicants face trial.
6) Learned APP appearing for the respondent State has also opposed
the present application and adopted the arguments canvassed by
Learned Counsel for the complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
7) The essential ingredients to invoke the provision of Section 306 and
Section 107 of IPC:
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.
Abetment defined under Section 107 of the IPC involves a mental
process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing
of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process
of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role
which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it
required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of
offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Abetment - Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of
abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an
offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any
person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act
or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to
complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to
provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The
abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided
in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act
abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no
provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be
punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted'
in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence
for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is
normally linked with the proved offence.
8) Section 306 of IPC penalises abetment of suicide. It is a unique legal
phenomenon in the Indian Penal Code that the only act, the attempt
of which along will become an offence. In order to invoke the
provisions of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, section 107 of Indian
Penal Code is required to be satisfied by the prosecution. Section 107
of the Indian Penal Code includes the acts, omissions and
commissions and also instigation with the deliberation and intention.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Instigation consists in actively suggesting and stimulating another to
act. It may be personal or through a third party. Instigation
necessarily indicates some active suggestion, or support or
stimulation to the commission of the act itself. There has to be a
reasonable certainty in regard to the meaning of the words used by
the 'inciter' in order to judge whether or not there was an incitement,
but it is not necessary, in law, to prove the actual words used for the
incitement. The word 'abetment' includes clause-3 namely 'abetment
by aiding'. The third way of abetting is by intentionally aiding the
doing of a thing by an act or illegal omission. In abetment by 'aid', it is
not the intention to aid the commission of crime, that is punished, but
the fact that something is done or not done, whereby the commission
of a crime is rendered more easy. In instigation, the criminal intention
is punished; in conspiracy, the intention plus some act; in aid, the act
itself. Reading Cl. 3 of the section with Expl.2, which goes with it, for
abetment by aid, four things must be combined :
9) An act which merely amounts to aiding the commission of an offence
is not an abetment. The aiding must snowball into 'intentionally
aiding' the doing of a thing. The commission of the act must be the
dominant intention of the person who aids it. If a person only knows
or has only reason to believe that his act would facilitate the
commission of offence, it cannot be said that his dominant intention
was that.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
10) On one part of the Sub-clause (3) of Section 107 can be divided into
two parts for doing and aiding act by making omission in doing an act.
At times even refraining from action and mere impassivity makes a
person liable to penalty. If person is duty bound to perform his duties
in a particular manner and if he does not behaved in a manner, he
ought to have, he causes continuous pressure and effects the mental
attitude to the victim. The omission on the part of the accused shall
include word 'aid' as mentioned in Section 107 of the Indian Penal
Code. In present case no such evidence in connection of abetment to
suicide being tendered by prosecution. Thus, the case is required to
be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.
11) Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, issuing memo or notice by the
applicants cannot be said to be the proximate cause for the deceased
to take such an extreme step. In this regard, reference is required to
be made to the decision in the case of Kumar alias Shiva Kumar vs.
State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2024 SC 1283. Considering the
gap between the application dated 01.04.2008 and the investigation
papers, it appears that the same was forwarded to the Department
only after the death of the deceased. Hence, there is no proximate
link clearly established between the alleged act and the incident in
question.
12) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal vs. State of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Madhy Pradesh reported in (2007)10 SCC 797 has held that
instigation literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about
by persuasion to do anything. Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that
before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of
suicide, he must have played an active role by an act of instigation or
by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
13) In the case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan reported in
(2010)12 SCC 190, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:―
"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on
the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 I.P.C. 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."
14) In the case of M. Arjunan vs. State (represented by its Inspector of
Police) reported in (2019)3 SCC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
been pleased to elucidate the essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 306 of the IPC in the following observations:
"The essential ingredients of the offence 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. The act of the accused, however, insulting the
deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the
abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that
the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit
suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide
are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C."
15) Similarly, in another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019)17
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
SCC 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expounded on the ingredients
of Section 306 of the IPC and the factors to be considered in
determining whether a case falls within the ken of the aforesaid
provision, in following terms:
"In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or
indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context
of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving
multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and
responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the
Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of
incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere
allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not
suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought
to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted
in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered
from the facts and circumstances of each case."
16) Further, 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. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behavior,
each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking
note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and
psyche of the accused and the deceased. If the persons who
committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
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. Conviction under Section
306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without
there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence
on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to
commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section
306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission
of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or
by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore,
the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence
must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could
be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.
17) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh vs. State
of Punjab reported in (2020)10 SCC 200 has held that, as in all
crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of
abetment, as specified under Section 107 of the IPC, the state of
mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the
culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on
record to establish or show that the accused had a guilty mind and in
furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the
deceased.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
18) It is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mariano Anto Bruno vs. State reported in (2023)15 SCC
560, wherein in Page 16 of 23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
thus:
"45. ...It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without
there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the
part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
19) Insofar as the allegation of harassment by the applicants to the
deceased leading the deceased to commit suicide is concerned, it is
submitted that mere harassment, cannot be sufficient to hold an
accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide, without all the
ingredients of section 306 of IPC being proved by the prosecution. In
this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar vs. State of
Haryana reported in (2024)3 SCC 573. In paragraphs 22 and 23 of the
said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held as under:
"22. This Court in Kashibai vs. State of Karnataka, observed that to bring
the case within the purview of "abetment" under Section 107 IPC, there
has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or
intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the
charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with
regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to
drive a person to commit
suicide.
23. Had there been any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on
account of which the wife was left with no other option but to put an end
to her life, it could have been said that the accused intended the
consequences
of his act, namely, suicide. A person intends a consequence when he
(1)foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
continue, and (2)desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability,
justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both
these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a
"subjective" test)."
20) Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the material placed on record, it emerges as an undisputed
and admitted position that the accused persons were employees of
the Government of India undertaking, namely BSNL. The deceased as
well as the accused were serving with BSNL in the capacities of
Telephone Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer respectively. Accused
No.1 has retired. The deceased, who had been in service since 1983,
consumed poison and committed suicide on 29.07.2008. Pursuant
thereto, Accidental Death Case No.15 of 2008 came to be registered
with Chaklasi Police Station and the same was investigated.
Thereafter, after a delay of approximately 14 months, the complaint
came to be lodged. However, no explanation whatsoever has been
offered by the complainant for such inordinate delay. The crux of the
allegations against the accused is that they used to exert pressure
and mentally harass the deceased by issuing memos and initiating
departmental proceedings. It is needless to state that initiation of
departmental action or issuance of memos against a subordinate
employee by itself cannot be construed as instigation, nor can the
same be brought within the ambit of mental harassment so as to
attract the alleged offence. In this regard, reference is required to be
made in the case of A.K. Chaudhary Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
reported in 2005 (3) GLH 444. Now coming back to the facts of the
case: to invoke the provision of Section 306, it is important to refer to
Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:-
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 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."
21) In view of the above, in absence of any mens rea on the part of the
accused, the complaint is filed belatedly after a span of 14 months
without any explanation. This court is of considered view that no
offense is made out under Section 306 of the IPC. The concept of
discharge in criminal jurisprudence operates as a constitutional
safeguard by ensuring that no individual is subjected to the burden of
a criminal trial unless the prosecution establishes a prima facie case.
22) For the foregoing reasons and observations, present revision
application is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated
16.02.2026 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at
Nadiad, below Exh:6 in Sessions Case No.93/2017, FIR being C.R.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/227/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
No.137/2009 registered at Chaklasi Police Station against the
applicants and other consequential proceedings, if any, are hereby
quashed and set aside.
23) The applicants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
Rule is made absolute. As the applicants accused are on bail, they
need not surrender. The applicants are ordered to be set at liberty
forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The bail and bail
bond stands cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. Record
and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
