Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Daulat Ram @ Daula Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:21810) on 6 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:21810]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 913/2023

Daulat Ram @ Daula Ram S/o Uda Ram, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o Dhani Tetarwal, Police Station Bhanipura, District Churu
(Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Ram Lal S/o Tiloka Ram Jat, R/o Dhani Tetarwal, Tehsil
         Bhanipura, District Churu.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
                                Mr. Rakesh Matoria



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                 Judgment

06/05/2025

      Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

against the order dated 17.06.2023, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Sardar Shahar, District Churu in Session Case

No.02/2023, whereby learned trial court framed the charges

against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC.

      Brief facts of the case are that on 07.11.2022, the

complainant, Ramlal gave a written report to the Police Station

Bhanipura inter alia alleging therein that his brother Omprakash

committed suicide due to threats given by the petitioner and other

persons. On this report, the police registered FIR No.225/2022.

After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the

present petitioner before the competent court and after arguments



                     (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:37:29 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:21810]                      (2 of 16)                       [CRLR-913/2023]



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 initially, deceased Omprakash filed a report on

05.11.2022      against       the      petitioner,       in     which   subsequently

compromise arrived between them on 06.11.2022, consequently,

the previous dispute is unrelated to the unfortunate event of the

deceased Omparkash's suicide, suggesting that the petitioner is

not liable for any alleged offence. The counsel argued that the

deceased Omprakash's Facebook status, posted before his suicide,

implicated the present petitioner as the main reason. The

subsequent removal of this post by the deceased raises doubts

and makes it difficult to confidently attribute the act of suicide to

the   present        petitioner.     Counsel        submitted        that   a   careful

examination of the suicide note/facebook status as well as other

material available on record 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 09:37:29 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:21810]                  (3 of 16)                    [CRLR-913/2023]



      Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the

respondent respondent No.2 have vehemently 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.

Counsel has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap

[AIR Online 2021 SC 210].

      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



                     (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:37:29 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:21810]                     (4 of 16)                     [CRLR-913/2023]


      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 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)

                        (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:37:29 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:21810]                     (5 of 16)                         [CRLR-913/2023]


      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.

In the present case, the recovered suicide note/screenshot of

the Facebook status are notably devoid of any explicit allegations

[2025:RJ-JD:21810] (6 of 16) [CRLR-913/2023]

of harassment, threats, or instigation on the part of the petitioner.

While the deceased Omprakash's pre-suicide Facebook status may

have indicated the petitioner as a reason, the absence of specific

details regarding actionable conduct within the preserved evidence

undermines the assertion that the petitioner's actions directly

caused or incited the suicide. Furthermore, the subsequent

deletion of this post by the deceased renders it difficult to

definitively substantiate the claim that the present petitioner was

the sole or primary reason for his act.

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/ facebook status and other evidence do not establish

such a link between the petitioner's actions and the deceased's

suicide. 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 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:

[2025:RJ-JD:21810] (7 of 16) [CRLR-913/2023]

"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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21810] (8 of 16) [CRLR-913/2023]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21810] (9 of 16) [CRLR-913/2023]

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

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

[2025:RJ-JD:21810] (10 of 16) [CRLR-913/2023]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21810] (11 of 16) [CRLR-913/2023]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21810] (12 of 16) [CRLR-913/2023]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21810] (13 of 16) [CRLR-913/2023]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21810] (14 of 16) [CRLR-913/2023]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21810] (15 of 16) [CRLR-913/2023]

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

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

no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing

[2025:RJ-JD:21810] (16 of 16) [CRLR-913/2023]

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