[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhu @ Kanchan Gurbani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9020
1 CRR. No. 1650 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 6th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1650 of 2022
MADHU @ KANCHAN GURBANI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Singh - learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Divyansh
Luniya - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi - G.A. for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 27.01.2026
Pronounced on : 06.04.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred challenging the legality of order dated
26.03.2022 in ST No.464/2021 by 20th Additional Sessions Judge,
Indore, whereby charges under Section 306/34 of the IPC have been
framed against the revision petitioners in a case arising out of Crime
No.23/2021 registered at police station Juni, Indore.
2. The facts of the case are that Nidhi Gurbani was married to
revision petitioner No.2 Vikas Gurbani 12 years ago prior to allege
incident dated 23.12.2020. The petitioner No.1 - Madhu alias
Kanchan Gurbani is the mother-in-law of Nidhi Gurbani. The
petitioner No.3 is the sister-in-law (Devrani) of Nidhi Gurbani. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9020
alleged incident occurred on 23.12.2020 at 1:00 PM at 32, Jayrampur
Colony Indore in which Nidhi sustained burn injuries and succumbed
to those burn injuries on 09.01.2021 at Choithram Hospital, Indore
during the treatment. A Marg No.3/2021 was registered at P.S. Juni,
Indore and a Crime No.23/2021 was registered on 15.01.2021 under
Section 306/34 of the IPC against the revision petitioners. After
completing the investigation, a final report was submitted and trial
Court framed the charges as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.
3. Challenging the framing of charges this revision petition has
been preferred on the ground that the trial Court has not considered
the dying declaration of the deceased in which she has not made any
allegation. Nidhi Gurbani was alive since 23.12.2020 to 09.01.2021
and was under treatment in the hospital but no allegations were
leveled during that duration also by the family members of the
deceased. On 09.01.2021 also, the family members of the maternal
side of the deceased were also present but there were no allegations.
During the period of 12 years also, there were no allegations and
allegation of impotency of the deceased is baseless as she has given a
birth to a male child on 21.09.2019 who is living with the revision
petitioners. Only to create the pressure, the allegations have been
leveled at a later stage of the investigations and those allegations also
do not fulfill the offence of abatement to commit suicide.
Heard.
4. Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the revision
petition and justified the framing of charges.
5. Notices were served on respondent No.2/victim but no one
responded.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9020
Perused the final report submitted under Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C, 1973 alongwith the documents submitted with the final
report and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of
the Cr.P.C., 1973.
6. Now examine the instant case on the touchstone of the principle
of law as well as the salient feature constituting an offence under
Section 306 of the IPC as mentioned below stated in Kamaruddin
Dastagir Sanadi Vs. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 908 and is
reproduced below:-
"18. Section 306 IPC defines abetment of suicide which reads as under:
"306. 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."
19. It provides for the punishment for abetting the commission of
suicide. Therefore, 'abetment' of suicide is an essential element for
punishing a person for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
20. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC and it reads as
under:
"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."
21. The very first clause of the aforesaid provision lays down that a
person, who abets the doing of a thing, is a person who instigates any
person to do that thing. Therefore, 'instigation' to do a particular thing
is necessary for charging a person with abetment.
22. 'Instigation' is to provoke, incite or encourage a person to do an
act.
23. This Court has repeatedly observed that abetment involves a
mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person
in doing of a particular thing and without the positive act on part of
the accused there would be no instigation. It has also been observed
that to convict a person for abetment of suicide under Section 306
IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused to abet
such a crime and it requires an active act or a direct act leading to the
commission of suicide.
24. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, a
three Judges Bench of this Court dealt with a case of suicide by the
wife, where the husband in anger uttered- 'You are free to do
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9020
whatever you wish and go wherever you like'. Thereafter, the wife
committed suicide. The Court, after (2001) 9 SCC 618 examining the
meaning of instigation which is an essential element for abetment of
suicide, observed that such words, uttered out of emotion, do not
constitute mens rea and do not amount to intentionally inciting the
other party to actually do an act which may result in the commission
of self-killing/suicide.
25. Even in cases where the victim commits suicide, which may be as
a result of cruelty meted out to her, the Courts have always held that
discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society
and that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the
mental state of the victim. Surely, until and unless some guilty
intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not
possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
26. The salient features constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC
were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan vs. State (2011) 3 SCC
626 represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and it was
observed as under:
"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an
occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with
the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading".
The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite
or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's
suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has
his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with
such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own
facts and circumstances.
44. 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.
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 disease to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must
have been intended to push the disease in two such a position that
he/she committed suicide."
27. The same aspects have been reiterated by this Court in Amalendu
Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Benga (2010) 1 SCC 707 and have
been again repeated in Prabhu vs. State represented by Inspector of
Police & Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 137.
28. In Prabhu (supra) the Court further observed that broken
relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life and that
breaking-up of the relationship would not constitute any instigation or
abetment of suicide inasmuch as in order to constitute 'Instigation' it
must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9020
continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. "
Now come to the fact of this case.
7. Nidhi Gurbani sustained burn injuries at 1:00 PM of
23.12.2020 at 32, Jayrampur Colony Indore and she was taken to
Choithram Hospital and Research Center, Indore for treatment by
petitioner No.2 and was admitted at 1:25 PM of 23.12.2020 and the
incident was intimated to police station Juni, Indore at 1:50 PM of
25.12.2020 to Sub-Inspector. Her dying declaration was recorded by
ASI Sunil Raikwar on 23.12.2020 in which Nidhi Gurbani stated that
she sustained accidental burn injuries when she was preparing the
food and was putting the bottle of Kerosene in the shelf of kitchen
and kerosene oil felled on the right side of the body and she came
into contact with the fire of gas stove. Statements of the mother of
the deceased were also recorded on 23.12.2020 and there was no
complaint against the revision petitioners. Thereafter, another dying
declaration was recorded at 7:00 P.M. on 23.12.2020 by Naib
Tehsildar, Juni, Indore in which she reiterated the same statement of
cause of death as accidental burn injuries. Till the treatment of Nidhi,
there was no complaint.
8. The statement of Rahul was recorded on 09.01.2021 in which
he leveled the allegations that the monter-in-law of Nidhi was
harassing to his sister and he came to know the fact through his
sister. The allegations were that on 22.12.2020, his sister was
subjected to physical assault and he leveled the allegations against
the mother-in-law and sister-in-law (devrani) only. Thereafter, the
statement of mother of the deceased was recorded on 13.01.2021 and
she leveled the allegations against mother-in-law and devrani with an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9020
explanation that earlier she has not stated anything due to the threat
of the mother-in-law and statements of Shivam Nawlani, Mahesh
Punjabi and Deepak Tharwani were also recorded on 13.01.2021 and
these three also leveled allegations against mother-in-law and sister-
in-law (devrani). On 14.01.2021, the statement of Sangeeta Gokhlani
was also recorded and she implicated the husband also. Rahul in his
statement on 14.01.2021 also implicated the husband. After
registration of crime, the statement of Shivam Nawlani, Mahesh
Punjabi, Deepak Tharwani and Sangeeta Gokhlani were recorded on
16.01.2021 and they repeated the allegations that she was harassed
being termed as impotent, physically assault, taunt for not doing the
domestic chores and giving bedroom to sister-in-law.
9. This Court has gathered the relevant facts from the final report,
which reveals that Nidhi died after 12 years of marriage. She had
given birth to a male child on 21.09.2019 through IVF. There was no
complaint made during the period of her burn injuries sustained on
23.12.2020 until her death on 09.01.2021. The statement recorded on
23.12.2020 as a dying declaration by the A.S.I. and the Naib
Tehsildar contains no allegation against the revision petitioners. The
dying declaration recorded by the Naib Tehsildar was made in the
presence of the deceased's mother. It is further evident that the
incident was immediately intimated to the maternal side of the
deceased, and she was promptly taken to the hospital by her husband
for treatment. The statement was recorded only after certification of
her fitness to give a statement by the In-charge of Choithram
Hospital, Indore. After her death, initially two persons were
implicated, and subsequently, the husband was also implicated. The
nature of the allegations appears to be nothing more than normal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9020
bickering among family members. No mens rea to abet the
commission of suicide by the deceased can be attributed to the
revision petitioners.
10. As a result, I do pursue merit in the present revision petition. The
act of the revision petitioners does not attract Section 306/34 of the IPC
and they cannot be compelled to face the trial unnecessarily.
11. In view of the above discussion, this revision is allowed. The
impugned order dated 26.03.2022 in ST No.464/2021 by 20th
Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, framing the charges under Section
306/34 of the IPC is hereby quashed and revision petitioners/accused
stand discharged.
12. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and disposed of.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
