Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Samundra Singh vs State on 11 March, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

          [2025:RJ-JD:12571]

                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                                 JODHPUR
                          S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5698/2022

           Madhu Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
           Ramdeora Ps Ramdeora Tehsil Pokaran Dist. Jaisalmer Raj.
                                                                             ----Petitioner
                                              Versus
           State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                           ----Respondent
                                        Connected With
                          S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3594/2020
           Samundra Singh S/o Pabu Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Village
           Mava, Police Station Ramdeora, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
                                                                             ----Petitioner
                                              Versus
           State, Through Pp
                                                                           ----Respondent
                          S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5920/2022
           Tejaram S/o Mr. Durgaram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ramdevra,
           Teh. Pokhran, Distt. Jaisalmer.
                                                                             ----Petitioner
                                              Versus
           State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                           ----Respondent


          For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv assisted by
                                          Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
                                          Mr. Manvendra Singh
                                          Mr. Rajendra Singh
          For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. N.K. Gurjar, GA cum AAG with
                                          Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan AAAG
                                          Mr. Bhawani Singh, CO, Pokaran
                                          (Jaisalmer)
                                          Mr. Moti Singh for complainant



                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                     Order

REPORTABLE Order Reserved on :                 05/03/2025

                               (Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:12571]                  (2 of 18)                    [CRLMP-5698/2022]


Date of pronouncement:               11/03/2025

      All these three misc petitions have been filed by the

petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 65/2020 registered at Police

Station Ramdeora, District Jaisalmer for offence under Sections

306, 447, 427, 323 & 143 IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) &

3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

      An FIR No. 65/2020 came to be registered on the basis of

Parcha bayan of Girdhari lal S/o Pratapa Ram in which he stated

that on 13.09.2020, Samandar Singh, Babu Singh Tanwar, Jhabar

Singh, Madhu Singh, Aam Singh, Derawar Singh and Dilip Singh

came to his Dhani and beaten him and his brother Babu lal. It was

alleged that they also broke his Water tank. He went to Tehsildar

office to complain but Tehsildar was not in his office. Thereafter,

he went to Police Station Pokaran, took petrol out of his

motorcycle, poured on his body and lit himself. It was alleged that

he has taken this step being troubled with Sarpanch and his family

members. Initially the FIR was registered for offence under

Section 447, 427, 423, 143 IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) &

3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but later on

Girdhari lal succumbed to injuries and offence under Section 306

IPC was added.

      Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that

no offence under Sections 306 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)

(r) & 3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out

against the petitioners as there is no evidence pointing out

complicity of the petitioner in commission of offence. It is argued

that the deceased in his statement has specifically stated that he

was upset/troubled as accused Samandar Singh, Babu Singh


                     (Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:12571]                  (3 of 18)                    [CRLMP-5698/2022]



Tanwar, Sarpanch, Ramdeora and Jhabar Singh, Madhu Singh,

Aam Singh, Derawar Singh and Dilip Singh came to his Dhani and

broke the Tank. He went to the office of Tehsildar but did not fine

anyone thereafter, he went to the Police station, Pokaran. When he

did not get any positive response, he self immolated himself. It is

argued that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken to

be true, even then the deceased ought to have taken legal remedy

from the competent authority or Court against the accused

persons. The deceased had already approached the authorities

including the Sarpanch and police. The accused persons did not

instigate or abetted the deceased to commit suicide and therefore,

the offence under Section 306 IPC is clearly not made out.

Similarly, the offence under Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(y) of

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are also not made out as the

deceased in his statement has nowhere stated that the accused

persons    intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to

humiliate him being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe within public view or tried to dispossess him.

Therefore, the FIR No. 65/2020 registered at Police Station

Ramdeora, District Jaisalmer for offence under Sections 306 IPC

and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act may be quashed. Learned counsel placed reliance

on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase

Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2025 0 SC 117, Prakash & Ors Vs.

State of Maharashtra (SLP Crl. No. 1073/2023) decided on

20.12.2024, Mangal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2025

Supreme (Online) (Raj) 1644.




                     (Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:12571]                    (4 of 18)                    [CRLMP-5698/2022]



      Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

the complainant submits that it is well settled legal position that

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in

exceptional cases when the Court finds that from the allegation

made in the FIR/complaint even prima facie no offence is made

out against the accused but in the present case from the evidence

collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no case is

made out against the petitioners for                 offence under Section 306

IPC. The deceased in his statement has categorically stated that

all the accused persons troubled him and therefore, he had taken

such a step. Moreover, the accused persons are already on bail

and they have every opportunity to raise all the arguments at the

time of framing of charges and at this stage, the FIR is not liable

to be quashed.

      I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on

behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.

      From the perusal of FIR and documents on record, the

allegation levelled by the deceased against the present petitioners

is that the accused persons came to his Dhani and beaten him and

his brother Babu lal. They also broke his Water tank. He

thereafter, went to Tehsildar office to complain but Tehsildar was

not in his office. Thereafter, he went to Police Station Pokaran,

took petrol out of his motorcycle, poured on his body and self

immolated. During his treatment, a statement was recorded

before the Magistrate in repeated the version of FIR, which reads

as under :-

      "Q.    vkius vius "kjhj ij vkx D;ksa yxkbZ \



                       (Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:12571]                       (5 of 18)                      [CRLMP-5698/2022]



      Ans. tCcjflag iq= dkuflag] nsjkojflag iq= vkeflag] fnyhi flag iq=

      tsBwflag o muds Hkkb;ksa ds lkFk esa leqUnzflag Hkh Fks mUgksaus esjs [ksr esa

      cus Vkad dks vkt 2 cts rksM+ fn;kA IykLVj dj jgs Fks mldks rksM

      fn;k fQj eSa dkjhxj dks NksMus iksdj.k vk;kA eSa rglhynkj o ,l

      Mh ,e dks feyus vk;k Fkk oks ;gka Fks ughaA ek/kqflag vkj vkbZ us dgk

      fd oks ugha ekurs gS rks ge D;k djsa ogka esjh fdlh us ugha lquh rks eSa

      iksdj.k Fkkus x;k ogka Fkkus ds ckgj eSaus [kqn ij iSV ªksy Mkydj vkx

      yxk nh fQj cpus ds fy, Fkkus ds vUnj ?kql x;kA Fkkus ds flikfg;ksa us

      vkdj esjh vkx cq>kbZ esjs 'kjhj esa vkx vkt eSaus [kqn us yxkbZA "



      At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 306 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."

      For commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC,

abetment is the necessary thing, which has been defined in

Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC, 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.

                          (Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:12571]                  (6 of 18)                          [CRLMP-5698/2022]


      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
      facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the
      doing of that act"

      When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is

clear that there must be: (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in

close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear

mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.


      The core element of Section 306 of IPC is the intentional

abetment of suicide. Thus, it is to be seen whether the abettor

intentionally instigated or aided the commission of the suicide.

Mere allegations of pestering, annoyance or strained relationships

etc do not suffice to establish abetment.                        In case of Rohini

Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has observed as under:



      "8. Reading these sections together would indicate that
      there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or
      intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'. When we apply these
      three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused
      must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or
      engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the


                     (Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:47:43 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:12571]                     (7 of 18)                     [CRLMP-5698/2022]


      person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act)
      intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.


      ...

13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband."

A plethora of Apex Court decisions have crystallized the law

of abetment. Abetment involves the 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 instigation or intentionally aiding.

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 he/ she would have no other option but to commit

suicide.

[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (8 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]

It is relevant to refer to statement of two independent

witnesses Manohar Ram and Chanana Ram. Both these witnesses

have stated that there is a dispute going on between Jhabar Singh

and Pratapa Ram with regard to land as there was no proper

demarcation done by Patwari. On the date of incident, Girdhari

Ram who is son of Pratapa Ram was getting a water tank

constructed. Girdhari asked Manohar Ram to fetch Sarpanch. The

witness came back with Samandar Singh, Sarpanch who asked

Girdhari lal to stop the construction till Diwali and after Diwali, he

will get the demarcation done positively. Samandar Singh and

other persons left but Girdhari lal went to Pokaran on his

motorcycle. Thus, there is no evidence or any material on record

showing that the petitioners explicitly provoked, goaded, or

instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The material on record

reflects that allegedly, the petitioners insisted the deceased to

stop construction of water tank. The primary interest of the

petitioners appears to be convincing the deceased to stop

construction, not forcing the deceased to take his life. The alleged

conduct does not fall within the ambit of "incitement" or

"instigation". In the case of suicide, a mere allegation of

harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice

unless there be such an action on the part of the accused that

compels the person to commit suicide and such an offending

action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.

The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long

[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (9 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]

settled was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab Reported in 1 (2004) 13

SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:

"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing 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 is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.

13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.,

Reported in 2 (2007) 10 SCC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as

follows in para 6:

"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The

[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (10 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]

offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. 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."

In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West

Bengal Reported in 2009 7 Supreme 289, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court observed that:-

"15. 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 suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the

[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (11 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]

allegation of harassment without their 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 of 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. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."

The scope and ambit of Section 107 of IPC and its co-relation

with Section 306 of IPC has been discussed repeatedly by the

[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (12 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]

Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of different High

Courts. In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan

and another Reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed as under:-

"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 this 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."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno

and Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police Reported in AIR 2022 SC

4994 observed as under :-

"This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, 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 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 suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the

[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (13 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]

Accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in another case of Mohit Singhal

Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 3578/2023)

dated 01.12.2023 has observed as under :-

"9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide."

Recently, in the case of Prakash and Others v. The

State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 INSC

1020 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients- first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.

14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well

[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (14 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]

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.

...

20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". It has been held that in order 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, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

...

22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that 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 has been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of harassment

[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (15 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]

of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further clarified that 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. It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a 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. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances.

...

26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person.

27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra) reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the

[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (16 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]

person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held that the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior and even the suicide note had been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act had been done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:

"11.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 close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of 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.

12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law."

(emphasis supplied)

28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, observed as follows:-

"20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred

[2025:RJ-JD:12571] (17 of 18) [CRLMP-5698/2022]

decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45)

"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 306IPC is not sustainable."

There is no allegation against the petitioners of a nature

that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit

the unfortunate act of committing suicide. Therefore, the

offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the

petitioners.

Similarly, from the perusal of the FIR so also the

statement of deceased Girdhari lal, there is nothing to suggest

that the accused petitioners intended to humiliate the deceased

being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe

(SC/ST) based on his caste nor any such allegation has been

levelled by the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case

of Swaran Singh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5758, referring to