Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Simran Sindhi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24378) on 20 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24378]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 378/2024
1. Simran Sindhi W/o Pawan Kumar, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Ward No.16, Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar
(Raj)
2. Pawan Sindhi S/o Bishan Das, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Ward No.16, Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj)
3. Kalu Ram Sindhi S/o Bishan Das, Aged About 36 Years, R/
o Ward No.16, Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mukesh S/o Ratan Lal, R/o Ward No.16, Srivijaynagar,
District Sriganganagar (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
Mr. Rakesh Matoria
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
REPORTABLE
20/05/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
against the order dated 23.01.2024, passed by learned Additional
Session Judge No.1, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in
Session Case No.27/2019, whereby learned trial court framed the
charges against the petitioners for offence under Section 306/34
IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 10.02.2019 the
complainant, Mukesh gave a written report to the Police Station
(Downloaded on 22/05/2025 at 09:36:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (2 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
Srivijaynagar inter alia alleging therein that his brother Sandeep,
had committed suicide due to threats allegedly issued by the
petitioners. Based on this report, the police registered FIR No.
36/2019. Following an investigation, the police filed a charge
sheet against the present petitioners before the competent court.
After hearing arguments regarding the framing of charges, the
court ultimately framed charges under Section 306/34 of the
Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Hence, this revision
petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended
vehemently that no offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made
out against the petitioners, as there is an absence of substantive
evidence establishing their involvement in the alleged offence. It
was argued that a suicide note, which was recovered in this case,
mentioned the names of five individuals, including the petitioners.
However, the police filed the challan only against the present
petitioners, while exonerating two other accused persons, namely
Ghanshyam Danga and Amit Nanda. The counsel further
submitted that the suicide note was sent for forensic science
examination (FSL), and the report from the FSL concluded that "it
has not been possible to express a definite opinion regarding
authorship of the blue enclosed disputed writing stamped and
marked as Q1." A careful examination of the suicide note reveals
no indication that the present petitioners instigated or abetted the
deceased in committing suicide, thus precluding the applicability
of Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the counsel contended that the trial
court erred in framing the charge under Section 306/34 of the
(Downloaded on 22/05/2025 at 09:36:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (3 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
IPC. Learned counsel placed reliance on recent judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh, in Cr. Appeal No.221/2025,
decided on 17.01.2025.
Learned AAG and learned counsel for respondent
No.2/complainant have 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 for
the respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok
Kumar Kashyap reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 210.
I have heard rival contention of the parties and perused the
impugned order of framing charge as well as 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."
(Downloaded on 22/05/2025 at 09:36:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (4 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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
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 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is read in
conjunction with Section 107 IPC, it becomes evident that certain
essential elements must be established to substantiate a charge of
abetment of suicide. Specifically, there must be: (i) direct or
indirect instigation; (ii) proximity or close temporal relationship to
the act of suicide; and (iii) a clear mens rea, or guilty mind, to
facilitate or encourage the commission of the suicide.
(Downloaded on 22/05/2025 at 09:36:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (5 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
The fundamental element of Section 306 IPC is the
intentional abetment of suicide. Consequently, for a court to
validly frame a charge under this section, it must ascertain
whether the accused intentionally instigated, provoked, or aided
the deceased in the act of suicide. Merely making allegations of
harassment, strained relationships, or emotional distress are
insufficient grounds to establish the requisite actus reus or mens
rea for abetment. Such allegations, without concrete evidence
demonstrating active incitement or aid, do not satisfy the legal
criteria necessary for conviction under Section 306 IPC.
The rationale behind this approach is to ensure that criminal
liability is not attributed lightly or based on conjecture. The law
recognizes the gravity of branding someone as an abettor of a
suicide, which could unjustly tarnish reputations and lead to
unwarranted punishment. Therefore, the prosecution must
establish that the accused's actions directly or indirectly instigated
or facilitated the deceased's decision to commit suicide, with a
clear intention and proximity to the act, thereby upholding the
principles of justice and fairness.
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
(Downloaded on 22/05/2025 at 09:36:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (6 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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.
...
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 comprehensive body of jurisprudence emanating from the
Supreme Court has crystallized the legal principles governing the
offence of abetment. Abetment, as understood in legal doctrine,
entails the mental process of either instigating or intentionally
aiding another individual to commit a particular act. In order to
sustain a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC), it is imperative to demonstrate that the accused engaged in
a positive act of instigation or deliberate assistance. Such acts
must be accompanied by a clear mens rea--an unequivocal
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (7 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
criminal intent to facilitate or encourage the commission of
suicide. Moreover, the instigation or aid must be of such a nature
that it effectively leaves the victim with no alternative but to
resort to suicide, thereby establishing a causal link between the
accused's conduct and the victim's fatal act.
The rationale underpinning this legal framework is to
distinguish between mere emotional distress or strained
relationships and the active, intentional conduct that directly
contributes to the victim's decision to end life. The law rightly
mandates a stringent standard of proof to prevent unwarranted
criminalization of conduct that does not unequivocally
demonstrate an intent to abet suicide. By requiring proof of
positive acts of instigation or aid and the presence of a guilty
mind, the judiciary ensures that only those individuals whose
conduct actively and intentionally precipitates the act of suicide
are held criminally liable. This approach safeguards individual
rights while emphasizing accountability for conduct that genuinely
fosters or encourages such tragic outcomes.
In the present case, the recovered suicide note explicitly
exonerates the petitioners, indicating solely that they were the
reason behind the deceased's decision to end his life. Crucially, the
note does not contain any direct allegations of harassment,
threats, or instigation by the petitioners with the intent to induce
the deceased to take such a drastic step. The absence of specific
accusations or evidence establishing any coercive or malicious
conduct on the part of the petitioners diminishes the likelihood of
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (8 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
their culpability in the deceased's demise. Furthermore, the
content of the note suggests that the deceased may have been
experiencing personal or psychological distress independent of the
petitioners' actions.
Additionally, the suicide note was sent for forensic science
examination (FSL), and the report from the FSL concluded that "it
has not been possible to express a definite opinion regarding
authorship of the blue enclosed disputed writing stamped and
marked as Q1." This finding further undermines any assertion of
authorship or direct involvement, as it indicates that the
handwriting on the disputed portion of the note could not be
conclusively attributed to the deceased or any other individual.
Consequently, the lack of definitive forensic evidence linking the
petitioners to the note, combined with the absence of
incriminating content, leads to the reasonable inference that the
petitioners' conduct was not directly responsible for the deceased's
suicide. Therefore, any implication of their culpability remains
unsubstantiated and requires cautious consideration.
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (9 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (10 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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
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."
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (11 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (12 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (13 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (14 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (15 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (16 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
...
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (17 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (18 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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."
In the case of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in AIR 2025 SC 568, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India addressed the issue of whether accused could be
charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly
abetting the suicide of the deceased. The court reasoned that the
evidence, including a suicide note and audio recordings, did not
demonstrate that accused had instigated or intended to instigate
the suicide, as required by law. The court emphasized the need for
a higher threshold of proof for such charges and criticized the
casual application of Section 306 by authorities. the relevant para
are:-
"18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the
requirement of instigation the Accused by his act or
omission or by a continued course of conduct should
have created such circumstances that the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was
also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and
emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be instigation.
..................
20. This Court has, over the last several decades,
repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by
law for Section 306 Indian Penal Code [Now Section 108
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (19 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have
followed more in the breach. Section 306 Indian Penal
Code appears to be casually and too readily resorted to
by the police. While the persons involved in genuine
cases where the threshold is met should not be spared,
the provision should not be deployed against individuals,
only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught
family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed
Accused and the deceased, their interactions and
conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the
deceased should be approached from a practical point of
view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life.
Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without
anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit
suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are
sensitised to the law laid down by this Court Under
Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the
abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The
trial courts also should exercise great caution and
circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe
syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the
investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter
disregard for the ingredients of Section 306."
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
suicide. The prosecution must show that the accused had a motive
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (20 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
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
there is no proof of any active role played by the accused in the
events leading up to the suicide, such as abusive behaviour or
threats, the Court may set aside the charge. Simple negligence or
even an argument that does not directly lead to the suicide would
not be sufficient to prove abetment.
In the present case, even if the allegations as contained in
the FIR and statements of the witnesses are taken as it is, even
then it cannot be said that petitioners have instigated the
deceased to commit suicide.
Regarding the case cited by respondent No. 2, State of
Rajasthan (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that,
at the stage of framing charges, the court is required to establish
only a prima facie case, rather than a comprehensive finding for
trial, which ultimately depends on the facts and circumstances of
each individual case. However, in the present matter, no prima
facie case has been established against the petitioners.
Furthermore, this Court opined that Section 306 of IPC
appears to be invoked in a casual and overly facile manner. While
it is imperative that the provision should not be indiscriminately
applied against individuals. The conduct of the accused and the
deceased, along with their interactions and communications
preceding the tragic event, should be evaluated from a pragmatic
perspective, taking into account the realities of everyday life.
[2025:RJ-JD:24378] (21 of 21) [CRLR-378/2024]
Hyperbolic exchanges or heated exchanges should not, in the
absence of additional evidence, be automatically regarded as
instigations to commit suicide. It is high time that investigating
agencies are made aware of the legal principles laid down by this
Court under Section 306, to prevent the misuse of the law through
untenable prosecutions. Likewise, trial courts must exercise
utmost caution and discernment, avoiding a mechanical or
superficial approach to framing charges. Even if the investigating
agencies fail to adequately establish the ingredients of Section
306, courts should not adopt a 'play it safe' attitude by
indiscriminately framing charges, thereby ensuring that the law is
not misused to subject individuals to unwarranted proceedings.
In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that in the
present case in hand trial court has committed an error in framing
charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the
impugned order dated 23.01.2024, passed by learned Additional
Session Judge No.1, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in
Session Case No.27/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
petitioner is discharged from the said offence.
The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
48-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
