Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Magan Lal vs Panna Lal And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:25747) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:25747]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 343/2008
Magan Lal S/o Shri Vaga Ram B/c Kumhar, Aged 55 years, R/o
Village Kachholi, Tehsil Pindwara District Sirohi (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Panna Lal S/o Danaji B/c Kumhar R/o Jhodali Tehsil Pindwara
District Sirohi (Raj.)
2. Smt. Gulabi W/o Bhera Ram B/c Kumhar R/o Jhodali Tehsil
Pindwara District Sirohi (Raj.)
3. Smt. Janta W/o Prabhu Ram B/c Kumhar R/o Jhodali Tehsil
Pindwara District Sirohi (Raj.)
4. The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
Mr. Hardik Gautam
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Rathore, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Rohit Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
23/05/2025
1. This revision petition arises from the judgment dated
28.02.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast
Track), Siorhi in Criminal Case No.36/2006 (21/2006) whereby
the respondents were acquitted of the charges framed under
Section 306 of IPC.
2. The petitioner is the complainant in the prosecution launched
against the respondents, who were accused of abetting the suicide
of the petitioner's daughter, Jyotshna. After conducting a full-
fledged trial, the learned trial court acquitted the accused on the
[2025:RJ-JD:25747] (2 of 5) [CRLR-343/2008]
ground that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and
carefully perused the judgment under challenge, as well as the
entire record of the case.
3.1. As per Exhibit P/1, the First Information Report was lodged
at the instance of the petitioner, stating that his daughter
Jyotshna, had been married to one Kesa Ram approximately
twelve years ago. The couple had three children out of the said
wedlock. On 19.10.2005, the petitioner received a phone call
informing him of his daughter's death, allegedly caused by the
accused respondents.
3.2. The petitioner asserted that his daughter had been killed by
the accused. However, upon investigation, the police did not find
any cogent evidence to support the allegation of murder.
Accordingly, a charge sheet was submitted under Section 306 IPC,
relating to abetment of suicide.
3.3. It is not in dispute that the deceased died at her matrimonial
home under circumstances other than normal. However, the
primary issue before the trial court was whether the surrounding
circumstances were such that they abetted the deceased to
commit suicide.
3.4. The petitioner raised allegations concerning an illicit
relationship between the deceased's father-in-law Panna Lal and a
woman named Gulabi. It was claimed that this relationship led to
cruelty being inflicted upon the deceased and that this cruelty
drove her to take her own life. However, these allegations were
[2025:RJ-JD:25747] (3 of 5) [CRLR-343/2008]
founded purely on hearsay and personal perception, and lacked
any tangible material evidence. The suggestion that the deceased
was aware of the illicit relationship and suffered cruelty on account
thereof remained hypothetical and unsubstantiated.
3.5. The trial Court correctly observed that no reliable evidence
was adduced to support the theory that the deceased was
harassed or treated with cruelty by the accused on account of the
alleged relationship. Moreover, the husband of the deceased was
neither charged nor prosecuted, and the information regarding the
alleged instigation or abetment came from an unknown source,
with no corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations made in
the present case, even when taken at their face value and
accepted in entirety, do not satisfy the legal ingredients necessary
to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306
IPC read with Sections 107 and 108 IPC. For an offence under
Section 306 IPC to be made out, there must be clear evidence of
"abetment" as defined under Section 107 IPC. This includes (i)
instigation of the deceased to commit suicide, (ii) engagement in a
conspiracy leading to the commission of suicide, or (iii) intentional
aid by act or illegal omission facilitating the commission of suicide.
In the present matter, there is a conspicuous absence of any
specific, proximate, or overt act on part of the petitioner that can
be construed as instigation, conspiracy, or active aiding of the
alleged suicide. However, mere verbal altercations, family discord,
or--absent any deliberate, sustained, or malicious conduct--do not
amount to "instigation" within the meaning of Section 107 IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:25747] (4 of 5) [CRLR-343/2008]
Mere harassment or discord without any positive act of instigation
or intentional aid would not attract Section 306 IPC. Furthermore,
the record lacks any suicide note, dying declaration, or statement
linking the petitioner's conduct directly to the mental state of the
deceased at the time of suicide. The causal link between the
alleged act and the suicide is wholly missing. Even under Section
108 IPC, it must be demonstrated that the accused abetted the
commission of an offence by someone else with the requisite
mental element. Here, no such mental element or deliberate
conduct with the intent to drive the deceased to suicide is made
out. The offence of abetment requires a degree of mental
culpability and participation which is entirely lacking in this case.
Thus, in light of the settled legal position and the facts on record,
the essential elements of "abetment" as defined under Sections
107 and 108 IPC are absent, and consequently, the charge under
Section 306 IPC is legally unsustainable.
4.1. It is a settled principle of law that a mere unnatural death of
a married woman at her matrimonial home does not ipso facto
warrant a conviction under Section 306 IPC, unless the essential
ingredients of the offence are duly established by the prosecution.
To sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution
must prove:
1. That the deceased committed suicide.
2. That the accused abetted the commission of suicide by
instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding.
[2025:RJ-JD:25747] (5 of 5) [CRLR-343/2008]
In the present case, while the fact of suicide is not in
question, the prosecution has failed to establish any act of
instigation or intentional aid on the part of the accused which
could have compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The motive
alleged i.e., the illicit relationship - has not been proven by any
admissible legal evidence. There is a complete lack of proximate
or direct evidence linking the accused to the suicide. The learned
trial court has carefully and meticulously analyzed the evidence
and has not committed any error of law in arriving at the
conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
5. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not expected to
reappreciate the entire evidence unless there is a manifest
illegality, gross perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the findings
recorded by the trial court. Upon a thorough examination of the
judgment under challenge and the evidence on record, I find no
such infirmity in the trial court's judgment.
6. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition.
The same is dismissed.
7. Ordered accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
9-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
