[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravindra@ Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 37099
1 CRR. No. 810 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 16th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 810 of 2025
RAVINDRA@ RAVI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Nilesh Dave - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Solanki - G.A. for the respondent/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 09.10.2025
Pronounced on : 16.12.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of
the Cr.P.C. and Section 438 r/w Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023 is
preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2025 in ST
No.01/2025 by Additional Judge, Sanawad to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Mandleshwa whereby the charge under Section 306
of the IPC (presently under Section 108 of BNS, 2023) have been
framed against the revision petitioners for abetment to commit the
suicide by Yashwant.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that Yashwant s/o Antarsingh
Mandloi resident of Indranagar, Sanawad died at 3:10 PM of 13th
May 2024. During treatment at Agrawal Hospital, Khargone Road
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 37099
Sanawad it was found that the cause of death was the consumption
of poisonous substance identified as Celphos. He was admitted for
treatment on 12.05.2024 and a Marg No.25/2024 was registered at
P.S. Sanawad, District Khargone. After enquiry, Crime No.245/2024
was registered against the revisions petitioners at P.S. Sanawad,
Khargone under Section 306 of the IPC and after investigation the
final report was submitted.
3. The trial Court framed the charges and the same have been
challenged on the ground that the essential ingredients of Section
306 of IPC is particularly lacking in the material collected during the
investigation. The act of the revision petitioners cannot be equated
with abetment. Counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance
on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998,
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2021) 1 SCC (Cri.) 834 and others and Priti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667.
Heard.
4. Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the criminal
revision by submitting that the impugned order does not require any
interference.
5. Perused the final report submitted under section 173 (2) of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 (presently section 193 of B.N.S.S., 2023) and the total
20 documents appended that includes dying declaration in the form
of suicide note at Sr. No.10 in the list of documents as well as the
statement recorded under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. three in numbers
and nine witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 37099
material collected in the form of statement is that present revision
petitioners were residing in front of the house of the deceased at
Indranagar, Sanawad, District Khargone. Revision petitioners/
accused Pinkibai is the daughter-in-law of the maternal father-in-law
of the deceased and revision petitioner/ Ravi Chouhan is the brother-
in-law of the Pinkibai (Devar) and the son of maternal father-in-law
of the deceased. The deceased was feeling aggrieved regarding the
imputations about his wife and deceased asked his wife not to talk
with revision petitioners. When the wife of the deceased was at her
maternal home, then deceased intimated in the evening of
12.05.2024 through phone to his wife that due to the mental
harassment of imputations regarding the character of the wife, he has
consumed the Celphos. The suicide note was found in the shirt's
pocket of the deceased in which the allegations of harassment were
recorded by revision petitioners and the sons of Anil and contractor,
but the wife denied any imputations regarding her character by the
son of the Anil and the Contractor and the final report was submitted
against the revision petitioners
6. The Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh; 2025 INSC 76, has summarized the law regarding
applicability of Section 108 of BNS, 2023 and para 11 to 20 is being
reproduced as below:-
"11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
"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."
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 37099
"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."
As is clear from the plain language of the
Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the
accused should have abetted the commission of a
suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly
- 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.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3)
SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the
deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between
quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to
follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the
requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these
words would be carried out in all events. ..."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8
SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section
306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part
of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person
concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the
intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to
commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC
707, this Court held as under:-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and
also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to
find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 37099
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."
16. 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 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has
examined different shades of the meaning of
"instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
"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."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence and material available on record
where from an inference of the appellant accused
having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the
appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to
convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be
a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires
an active act or direct act which led the deceased to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 37099
commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he/she committed suicide."
18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the
accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger
and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be
said to be instigation.
19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are
convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC
against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's case on a
demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the
appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased
and advanced to Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by
performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer
can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally so, with
the transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even taken
literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the
commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his
acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except
to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges
with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with
no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a
realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely, the
FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days.
20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher
threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with
Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however
seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be
casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in
genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision
should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate
feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed
accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the
unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point
of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed
in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to
commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid
down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the
abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should
exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe
syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in
a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 37099
7. When the facts of the present case are analyzed in light of the
legal principles extracted hereinabove, neither any live link nor any
proximity between the acts of the petitioners and the act of
committing suicide by the deceased is discernible. The requisite
mens rea on part of the revision petitioners is also lacking. It cannot
be said that the petitioner had abetted or instigated the deceased to
commit suicide and that the deceased was left with no option but to
commit suicide. This Court is of the opinion that necessary
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC are not
made out against the revision petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 24.01.2025 is hereby set aside and the revision
petitioners are discharged.
8. In view of above, criminal revision stands allowed.
9. Record of the Court below be returned back alongwith the
copy of this order.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
