[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Nanhak Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 22 December, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3685 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2023 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas
======================================================
Nanhak Rai S/O Late Raja Rai R/O- Malhipur, P.S- Chenari, District - Rohtas.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 22-12-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal has been directed against
the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2025 and order of
sentence dated 12.08.2025 passed by learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions
Trial No. 260 of 2024, arising out of Chenari P.S. Case No. 189
of 2023 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for three years and six months along with fine of
Rs. 5,000/- under the said section. In case of default of payment
of fine, appellant has to undergo further simple imprisonment of
two months.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
2/24
3. According to written statement given by the
informant/PW-2, informant solemnized the marriage of his
daughter Neha Kumari four years ago with Nanhak Rai-
appellant according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that
after some days, appellant-husband and informant's daughter-
wife started quarreling on the issue of dowry which was being
informed by informant's daughter. The informant had pacified
the dispute on one or two occasions. It is alleged that on
16.06.2023
on the issue of going outside in connection with
livelihood, informant's daughter has been killed by the appellant
and others at about 10:00 PM regarding which he got
information on 17.06.2023 at 6:00 AM. On the aforesaid
information, he reached the house of his son-in-law where he
found that his daughter was lying dead.
4. On the basis of written statement given by the
informant/PW-2, Chenari P.S. Case No. 189 of 2023 dated
17.06.2023 was registered under Sections 304(B)/34 of the
IPC. Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses
came to be recorded and on the completion of investigation,
charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant under
Section 304(B) of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court
took cognizance. The case was committed to the court of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
sessions after following due procedure. The learned trial court
framed charges against the appellant under Sections 304(B)/34
and 302/34 of the IPC. Charges were read over and explained to
the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
5. In order to bring home guilt of accused
person/appellant, prosecution has examined altogether four
witnesses. PW-1 Dr. B.K. Pushkar, PW-2 Suresh Rajbhar
(informant of the case), PW-3 Sitaram Bind and PW-4 Manita
Kumari (I.O. of the case).
6. Prosecution has relied upon following
documentary evidence on record:-
Ext. 1- Post mortem report
Ext. P-1-Inquest report
Ext. P-2- Signature of I.O.
on charge sheet.
7. Defence has not produced any oral or
documentary evidence. However, defence of the appellant as
gathered from the line of cross examination of prosecution
witnesses as well as from the statement under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. is that of total denial.
8. After hearing the parties, the learned trial
court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated in
the second paragraph of the judgment.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
9. Following submissions have been made on
behalf of learned counsel for the appellant:-
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial
court is illegal and not supported by any material available on
record and same is based on conjectures and surmises. He
further submits that during course of trial not a single witness
has been examined by the trial court who is the witness of place
of occurrence and the Investigating Officer has also not taken
pain to examine any witness of alleged place of occurrence. He
further submits that PW-1, who is doctor, has stated that
deceased died on account of asphyxia due to hanging. Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that PW-2/informant himself
admitted in para 19 of the cross examination that 150 villagers
were present and they were saying that informant's daughter
died by hanging herself. At Para 36, PW-2 has stated that
appellant and his family members were not demanded dowry at
the time of marriage but later on demand was made but there is
no witness in the village regarding the said demand. He further
submits that trial court ought to have considered the statement
of informant that about 150 people were saying that deceased
had hanged herself. He further submits that PW-4/I.O. admitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
that deceased died due to hanging and there was no sign of
injury on her body. PW-3 Sitaram Bind not appeared before the
trial court for cross examination after giving several
opportunities and his statement in examination-in-chief could
not be considered. He further submits that from perusal of entire
evidence of prosecution witness, it has not been proved that
deceased died due to cruelty. He further submits that no
complaint was lodged earlier either by the informant or by his
family member. The informant himself admitted in his own
evidence that no dowry was demanded by the appellant. Then
there is no question that demand of dowry at later stage i.e. just
after the marriage was made. The trial court ought to have
considered that appellant wanted to go outside the village for
livelihood but his wife does not want him to go outside the
village and on the date of the occurrence appellant went to
market to buy something in the meantime, she hanged herself.
The trial court held that prosecution has failed to prove the
charges under Sections 302, 304(B) of the IPC, hence appellant
is acquitted under the said charges but he has been convicted
under Section 306 of the IPC. He further submits that the trial
court committed serious error as prosecution has completely
failed to establish that deceased Neha Kumari had no other
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
option left rather to take the extreme step for ending her life. It
has been submitted that after going through the evidence of all
the prosecution witnesses, postmortem report and material
available on record, no offence is made out under Section 306 of
the IPC and hence, appellant deserves acquittal. He further
submits that there are contradictions in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and not a single witness has stated that
deceased/victim was instigated to commit suicide and there was
no suicide note which clearly negates that appellant is
responsible for commission of suicidal act of the deceased. In
the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are
liable to be set aside.
10. Learned APP for the State has submitted
that the concerned court in impugned judgment has recorded the
reasoning that in para 15 of deposition of Investigating Officer
he has stated that appellant was adamant not to go outside for
earning his livelihood despite being continuous request made by
the deceased and appellant has taken excuse for not going
outside just because for the welfare of his children. Learned
APP further submits that the concerned court has acquitted the
appellant from the charges under Sections 302/304B of the IPC
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
as there was nothing on record to prove that deceased was
subjected to torture on account of dowry immediately prior to
her death but the appellant has been convicted under Section
306 of the IPC and the court has cited the reasoning that despite
being request made by the victim-deceased to go outside for
earning, the appellant did not go outside due to welfare of the
children which is reflected in the evidence of I.O. and on the
said version of I.O., the concerned court has interpreted that
wife-deceased has taken extreme step to end her life. Learned
APP further submitted that after going through the material
available on record, the court has passed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence on the basis of material
available on record and hence, no interference is needed.
11. The question which arises for consideration
is:-
"Whether the appellant has
committed the offence punishable under
Section 306 of the IPC in the light of given
facts and circumstances of the case or not ?"
12. I have perused the impugned judgment,
order of trial court and trial court records. I have given my
thoughtful consideration to the rival contention made on behalf
of the parties as noted above.
13. It is necessary to evaluate, analyze and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
screen out the evidences of witnesses adduced before the trial
court.
14. PW-2/ Suresh Rajbhar is informant as well
as father of the deceased. During examination-in-chief he has
stated that his daughter was married with the appellant five
years ago. He has improvised his statement that he gave
motorcycle and Rs. 90,000/- in cash which was not part of
initial version of prosecution story. He has also improvised his
statement that 4 to 5 times compromise had taken place. Again
he improvised his statement that his daughter was assaulted by
the appellant and other. He has again improvised his statement
that appellant informed that informant's daughter burnt while
cooking. He has also stated that after hearing the noise,
informant and 40-50 people went to the sasural of informant's
daughter. He has stated that his daughter sustained injury on
cheek which was not found in the initial version of prosecution
story. He has improvised his earlier statement that there was
penetrating wound of knife beside stomach and deceased also
sustained injury on the ear. In para 19 of cross examination he
has stated that people were telling that his daughter committed
suicide by hanging herself. At para 25 he has stated that
appellant wanted to go outside but he advised to go with his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
family but mother and brother of appellant prevented to do so.
He has admitted in para 36 that at the time of marriage no
dowry was demanded by the appellant and his family members
but later on demand was made.
The evidence of PW-2/informant is full of
contradictions and inconsistencies with the initial version of
prosecution story. No act of instigation was attributed to the
appellant for commission of suicide by the informant's daughter.
It has also not come in the evidence of PW-2 that informant's
daughter had no other option left but to commit suicide.
15. PW-3/ Sitaram Bind has admitted that
marriage of informant's daughter was solemnized with the
appellant near about 2-3 years prior to the occurrence. He has
stated that informant's daughter lived at her sasural in a better
way and appellant came and took informant's daughter and it
was also told by the appellant that he and Neha will go outside
and work. At para 10 of cross examination he has stated that
informant's daughter/deceased did not ever make any grievance
against the appellant.
From the evidence of PW-3, it is clear that
deceased has not raised any grievance against the appellant and
PW-3 has also not stated anything which entails the allegation
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
made under Section 306 of the IPC.
16. PW-4/ Manita Kumari is investigating
officer of the case. She has stated that after taking charge of
investigation, she perused the FIR and recorded re-statement of
informant and proceeded for place of occurrence. She also
recorded the statement of Jayshankar Bind and Sitaram Bind on
the place of occurrence. In para 12 of cross examination, she has
stated that deceased died on account of hanging and no injury
was found on her body and there was no mark of violence on
her body and appellant has no criminal antecedent. This witness
has stated in para 15 that no witness has given statement
regarding the torture and assault and no witness has given
statement that appellant had demanded dowry from his wife-
deceased. Witnesses have stated that appellant was a poor
fellow, he was labourer and appellant was repeatedly told by his
wife to go outside for earning but he did not go outside for the
sake of his children.
PW-4/ I.O. has stated that no torture or assault
was ever made by any prosecution witness. There was no
demand of dowry. Nothing has been stated by the I.O. which
shows that appellant is responsible for commission of suicide by
the deceased rather it was explained that appellant was a poor
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
fellow, he was labourer and he did not go outside for earning for
the sake of his children.
17. PW-1/ Dr. B.K. Pushkar has stated that on
17.06.2023 he was posted at Sadar Hospital as a medical officer
and on the same day, he conducted post mortem on the dead
body of Neha Kumari (informant's daughter) and found
following injuries:-
External Examination:-
1. Bruise black colour of both upper and lower limb,
both eye closed and swollen, face black colour, froth coming out
from both nostril, abdomen full and distended. A black bruise
was found over right cheek size 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch, a black
bruise was found over right side of mondible size 1/2 inch x 1/4
inch with no oozing blood.
Local Examination:-
i. Neck- A blackish ligature mark was found high up
of neck obliqually towards the both side of mandible up to
posterior auricular area of skull where a gap was found over
nape of neck of 1/2 inch diameter of ligature mark and
superficial skin under the ligature mark hard and leathary.
Dissection:-
i. Skull-Intact bone and membrane intact. Brain
substance (maninges intact and congested).
ii. Neck- Subcutaneous tissue under the ligature mark
was loosed and muscle of neck was compressed. Muscle over
the cartilage was compressed. Large vessel of neck was
enguarged. Echynosis of muscle was found. Trachea rings
compressed antero posteriorly. Ephithelium of trachea was
hipermic. Both lungs intact and congested. Pericardium intact
both chamber of heart contain blood, stomach contains semi
digested food material. Small intestine contain gas and fluid.
Large intestine contain gases and feacle material. Liver, spleen
and both kidney congested and intact. Urinary bladder contain
50ml of urine. Other genitalia intact.
Cause of death- Asphyxia due to hanging. However,
following viscera sent to Patna F.S.L for chemical analysis
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
separated with Jar containing common salt solution tag and
sealed and all viscera put and large bag with tagged and level
following viscera namely i. Piece of liver, (ii) Piece of lung (iii)
Piece of heart (iv) stomach and its contains (v) spleen (vi) Piece
of loop of small intestine (vii) Kidney.
Time elapse since death till P.M examination-6 to 24
hours.
Rigor mortis present both and upper and lower limb.
This P.M report is prepared and written by me and
signed by me which I identified and marked as Ext 1.
In the opinion of doctor, cause of death of deceased
was asphyxia due to hanging.
18. It is relevant to quote judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in the case of Pinakin Mahipatray
Rawal vs State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 10 SCC 48 in
which at para 25 of the said judgment reference of Section 113-
A has been given which reads as under:-
"113-A. Presumption as to
abetment of suicide by a married woman-
when the question is whether the commission
of suicide by a woman had been abetted by
her husband or any relative of her husband
and it is shown that she had committed
suicide within a period of seven years from
the date of her marriage and that her
husband or such relative of her husband had
subjected her to cruelty, the court may
presume, having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case, that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband or by such
relative of her husband.
Explanation- For the purposes of
this section, 'cruelty' shall have the same
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
meaning as in Section 498-A of the Penal
Code, 1860."
Further in para 26 of the said judgment, it has been
observed as follows:-
"26. Section 113-A only deals with a
presumption which the court may draw in a
particular fact situation which may arise when
necessary Ingredients in order to attract that
provision are established. Criminal law
amendment and the rule of procedure was
necessitated so as to meet the social challenge
of saving the married woman from being ill-
treated or forcing to commit suicide by the
husband or his relatives, demanding dowry.
Legislative mandate of the section is that when
a woman commits suicide within seven years of
her marriage and it is shown that her husband
or any relative of her husband had subjected
her to cruelty as per the terms defined in
Section 498-A IPC, the court may presume
having regard to all other circumstances of the
case that such suicide has been abetted by the
husband or such person. Though, a
presumption could be drawn, the burden of
proof of showing that such an offence has been
committed by the accused under Section 498-A
IPC is on the prosecution. On facts, we have
already found that the prosecution has not
discharged the burden that A-1 had instigated,
conspired or intentionally aided so as to drive
the wife to commit suicide or that the alleged
extramarital affair was of such a degree which
was likely to drive the wife to commit suicide.
19. On the facts, I have already found that
prosecution has not discharged the burden in the present case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
PW-4/I.O. has already stated that witnesses have not stated that
victim/deceased was being subjected to cruelty, torture and
appellant had never demanded any dowry. Then the prosecution
has not discharged the burden that appellant had instigated,
conspired, intentionally aided so as to drive the wife to commit
suicide. Only reason as quoted by the trial court is that wife has
taken extreme step for ending her life is that appellant has
decided not to go outside for earning despite being the request
made by the deceased and appellant has taken the excuse of
children.
20. It is also relevant to quote judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Jayedeepsinh
Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat passed in
Criminal Appeal No. ....... of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 7957 of 2024) in which at paragraphs no. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, it has been held as follows:-
16. Section 306 of the IPC provides for
punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide.
It has to be read with Section 107 of the IPC which
defines the act of 'abetment'. The provisions read
as follows:
"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
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.
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."
17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those
who abet the act of suicide by another. For
a person to be charged under this section,
the prosecution must establish that the
accused contributed to the act of suicide
by the deceased. This involvement must
satisfy one of the three conditions outlined
in Section 107 of the IPC. These
conditions include the accused instigated
or encouraged the individual to commit
suicide, conspiring with others to ensure
that the act was carried out, or engaging
in conduct (or neglecting to act) that
directly led to the person taking his/her
own life.
18. For a conviction under Section 306 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
the IPC, it is a well-established legal
principle that the presence of clear mens
rea-the intention to abet the act-is
essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not
sufficient to find an accused guilty of
abetting suicide. The prosecution must
demonstrate an active or direct action by
the accused that led the deceased to take
his/her own life. The element of mens rea
cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it
must be evident and explicitly discernible.
Without this, the foundational requirement
for establishing abetment under the law is
not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of
a deliberate and conspicuous intent to
provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.
The same position was laid down by this
Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan, wherein it was observed that:
"25. Abetment involves a mental process
of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act on the 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 the Supreme
Court is clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has to
be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
It also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and that act must have
been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed suicide."
19. To bring a conviction under section
306, IPC it is necessary to establish a
clear mens rea to instigate or push the
deceased to commit suicide. It requires
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
certain such act, omission, creation of
circumstances, or words which would
incite or provoke another person to
commit suicide. This Court in the case of
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,
defined the word "instigate as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do "an
act". To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that
actual words must be used to that effect or
what constitutes instigation must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive
of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
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."
20. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled
in order to bring a case under Section 306,
IPC are:
i. the abetment;
ii. the intention of the accused to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased to commit
suicide.
21. Thus, to bring a case under this
provision, it is imperative that the accused
intended by their act to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. Thus, in cases
of death of a wife, the Court must
meticulously examine the facts and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
circumstances of the case, as well as
assess the evidence presented. It is
necessary to determine whether the cruelty
or harassment inflicted on the victim left
them with no other option but to end their
life. In cases of alleged abetment of
suicide, there must be concrete proof of
either direct or indirect acts of incitement
that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of
harassment are insufficient to establish
guilt. For a conviction, there must be
evidence of a positive act by the accused,
closely linked to the time of the incident,
that compelled or drove the victim to
commit suicide.
22. It is essential to establish that the
death was a result of suicide and that the
accused actively abetted its commission.
This can involve instigating the victim or
engaging in specific actions that
facilitated the act. The prosecution must
prove beyond doubt that the accused
played a definitive role in the abetment.
Without clear evidence of an active role in
provoking or assisting the suicide, a
conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot
be sustained.
23. The act of abetment must be explicitly
demonstrated through actions or
behaviors of the accused that directly
contributed to the victim's decision to take
their own life. Harassment, in itself, does
not suffice unless it is accompanied by
deliberate acts of incitement or
facilitation. Furthermore, these actions
must be proximate to the time of the
suicide, showcasing a clear connection
between the accused's behavior and the
tragic outcome. It is only through the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
establishment of this direct link that a
conviction under Section 306 IPC can be
justified. The prosecution bears the burden
of proving this active involvement to hold
the accused accountable for the alleged
abetment of suicide. The same position has
been laid down by this court in several
judgments, such as:
i. M. Mohan v. State;
ii. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of
West Bengal;
iii. Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka.
24. Therefore, for a conviction under
Section 306 IPC, there must be clear
evidence of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to commit suicide. The cause of
suicide, especially in the context of
abetment, involves complex attributes of
human behavior and reactions, requiring
the Court to rely on cogent and convincing
proof of the accused's role in instigating
the act. Mere allegations of harassment
are not enough unless the accused's
actions were so compelling that the victim
perceived no alternative but to take their
own life. Such actions must also be
proximate to the time of the suicide. The
Court examines whether the accused's
conduct, including provoking, urging, or
tarnishing the victim's self-esteem, created
an unbearable situation. If the accused's
actions were intended only to harass or
express anger, they might not meet the
threshold for abetment or investigation.
Each case demands a careful evaluation of
facts, considering the accused's intent and
its impact on the victim.
25. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of
Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
held that to convict an accused under
Section 306 IPC, the intent or mental state
to commit the specific crime must be
evident when assessing culpability. It was
observed 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
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.
21. It is also relevant to quote the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar
vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. passed in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024 in which at para 19 and 20 it
has been held as follows:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
"19. Madan Mohan Singh v. State
of Gujarat reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628 was a
case in which the accused was alleged to have
continuously harassed and insulted the
deceased and spoken as to how he was still
alive despite the insults levelled. There was also
a suicide note in which the deceased, a driver,
accused his employer of having driven him to
suicide. Despite such an allegation in the
suicide note, this Court found that there was
absolutely nothing in the suicide note or the
F.I.R. which could even distantly be viewed as
an offence, much less under Section 306 of the
I.P.C.
20. Again, the ingredients under
Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. was
interpreted by one of us in Prakash and Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in
2024 SCC Online SC 3835 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
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 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."
22. In the present case, there was no
evidence that the appellant has instigated, conspired,
intentionally aided so as to drive the wife to commit suicide and
there was no evidence of direct triggering act that left the
deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. Neither
informant nor any other witness has stated that appellant was
instigating or intentionally aiding in the commission of suicide
by the victim/deceased. Merely allegation without any positive
act of instigation or intentionally aiding cannot attract Section
306 of the IPC. In the present case, the informant/PW-2 has
improvised his evidence adduced during course of trial and he
has also admitted that at the time of marriage, no demand was
made. I.O./PW4 has stated that dowry was not demanded by the
appellant. Even no witness has stated that victim was being
tortured for dowry rather I.O. has stated that appellant is a poor
fellow and he was asked by his wife-deceased to go outside for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
earning but appellant has taken plea of children for not going
outside. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is
quite convincing in the light of aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case.
23. On all counts from the analysis of
evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as material available
on record, I find that appellant has not committed any positive
act amounting to instigation or intentionally aiding in
commission of suicide. In this way, the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the concerned court
are not justified and legal and same is fit to be set aside.
24. In the result, in my view, prosecution
case suffers from several infirmities, as noticed above, and it
was not a fit case where conviction could have been recorded.
The learned trial court fell in error of law as well as appreciation
of facts of the case in view of settled criminal jurisprudence.
Hence, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
are hereby set aside and this appeal stands allowed. Appellant is
in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not
warranted in any other case.
25. The interlocutory application, if any, also
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3685 of 2025 dt.22-12-2025
stands disposed of.
26. Let a copy of this judgment be
transmitted to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for
compliance and for record.
27. The records of this case be also returned
to the concerned trial court forthwith.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 20.11.2025
Uploading Date 22.12.2025
Transmission Date 22.12.2025
