Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Aashish Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:21444) on 5 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:21444]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
              S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 705/2024

Aashish Kumar S/o Shri Kanti Lal, Aged About 20 Years, B/c
Brahmin, R/o Bhawani Nagar, Dist. Bhilwara, (Raj.).
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.         State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.         Kailash S/o Harnaath, R/o Khatwara P.s. Bigodh, Dist.
           Bhilwara
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Shailendra Gwala
For Respondent(s)            :    Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                      Order

05/05/2025

      Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

against the order dated 22.04.2024, passed by learned Additional

Session Judge, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara in Session Case

No.41/2022, whereby learned trial court framed the charges

against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC.

      Brief   facts   of   the     case     are     that     on    28.01.2022       the

complainant, Kailash gave a written report to the Police inter alia

alleging    therein   that       about    three      years        ago,    engagement

ceremony of his niece Priyanka Sharma had performed with the

petitioner steeming from their friendship. Subsequently, their

marriage was fixed on 10.02.2022 as part of a communal

marriage function. It was further alleged that complainant niece

travelled to Bhilwara for shopping with her prospective in-laws,

where the petitioner and his family members demanded Rs.5 lacs,

                      (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:31:02 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:21444]                  (2 of 16)                      [CRLR-705/2024]



upon refusal to fulfill the demand, the family members of the

petitioner assaulted and threatened her to face the repercussions.

On   27.01.2022,     complainant's          niece      committed     suicide   by

consuming poison. It was alleged that Priyanka committed suicide

due to ill treatment, trauma and threatening given by the

petitioner and his family members.

      On this report, the police registered FIR 43/2022. After

investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the present

petitioner before the competent court and after arguments on

charge, charge for offence under Section 306 IPC was framed

against the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition.

      Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that

no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the

petitioner as there is a lack of evidence demonstrating the

petitioner's involvement in the commission of the alleged offence.

It was argued that a suicide note recovered in this case explicitly

identifies the petitioner as a family member and requests that he

be cared for. Furthermore, the deceased stated her inability to

continue living without Ashish (the Petitioner). Counsel submitted

that a careful examination of the suicide note reveals no indication

that the accused petitioner instigated or abetted the deceased in

committing suicide, thereby precluding the application of Section

306 IPC. Consequently, the trial court erred in framing the charge

under Section 306 of the IPC. Learned counsel placed reliance on

recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of

M.P. Vs. Sudbir Pingle reported in 2000 Cr.L.J 944 and this

Court in the cse of Ravindra Kumar Rampuriya Vs. State of

Rajasthan reported in AIR Online 2024 Raj. 928.

                     (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:31:02 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:21444]                   (3 of 16)                    [CRLR-705/2024]



        Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of respondent

No.2.

        Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by

the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the trial court

after considering the entire evidence as well as statements of

witnesses rightly framed charges against the petitioner. Further, at

the time of framing charge, meticulous examination of evidence is

not necessary. The impugned order of framing charge is perfectly

justified and requires no interference from this Court.

        I have heard rival contention of the parties and carefully

considered the material available on record.

        In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be apt to

refer to Section 306 of I.P.C. which 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 alsobe 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.
        Explanation   1.--A    person    who,   by   wilful
        misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a

                      (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:31:02 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:21444]                     (4 of 16)                     [CRLR-705/2024]


      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, for framing a charge for the offence

under section 306 IPC, the learned court below is to consider

whether     the      abettor    intentionally         instigated    or   aided   the

commission of the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or

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

      ...

[2025:RJ-JD:21444] (5 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

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.

In the present case, the recovered suicide note explicitly

exonerates the petitioner, describing him as a family member and

stating the deceased's inability to live without him. Crucially, the

note contains no allegations of harassment, threats, or instigation

[2025:RJ-JD:21444] (6 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

by the petitioner, and the deceased declared her act was of her

own free will with no one responsible. Evidence suggests a

consensual relationship between the petitioner and the deceased,

with initial familial agreement for marriage. The subsequent

cancellation of the marriage by the deceased's father, rather than

any action by the petitioner, appears to be the proximate cause of

the deceased's distress, as indicated by the suicide note and

surrounding circumstances.

Legally, for an act to constitute abetment of suicide, there

must be a direct and proximate link between the accused's actions

and the deceased's decision to end their life. Mere allegations of

harassment are insufficient. The accused's conduct must be of

such a nature that it compels the victim to commit suicide, and

this conduct must be close in time to the suicide. In this case, the

suicide note and other evidence do not establish such a link

between the petitioner's actions and the deceased's suicide.

Instead, the evidence points towards the deceased's distress

stemming from the broken engagement, which was initiated by

her father.

Therefore, based on the contents of the suicide note and the

absence of evidence demonstrating the petitioner's instigation,

harassment, or any action compelling the suicide, there is no legal

basis to attribute responsibility for the deceased's death to the

petitioner. The deceased's own words and the circumstances

surrounding the broken engagement suggest a different

underlying cause for her tragic act.

[2025:RJ-JD:21444] (7 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long

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:

[2025:RJ-JD:21444] (8 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

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

[2025:RJ-JD:21444] (9 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

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 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:21444] (10 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

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:21444] (11 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

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:21444] (12 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

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:21444] (13 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

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:21444] (14 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

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:21444] (15 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

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 306 IPC is not sustainable."

Recently, in the case Lamxi Das vs The State of West

Bengal & Ors. Reported in 2025 INSC 86 the Hon'ble Apex

Court has observed that:-

"14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure on the deceased to end the relationship between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased's family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC."

Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial

pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the trial

Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet

and the witness statements, are taken to be correct, there is not

an iota of evidence against the petitioner. There is no allegation

[2025:RJ-JD:21444] (16 of 16) [CRLR-705/2024]

against the petitioner of a nature that the deceased was left with

no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing

suicide. The prosecution must show that the accused had a motive

to abet the suicide. If no plausible motive is established, and the

relationship between the accused and the deceased does not

suggest any ill-willed intent, the charge could be set aside. If