Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hanuman And Ors vs State on 14 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:46983]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 478/2013
1. Hanuman S/o Shri Manphool Giri Gusain, R/o Aradki, at
present residing at Ward No.6, Nohar, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan)
Convict No.2
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Malchand Agrawal, R/o Ward No.13,
Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
Convict No.4
----Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 550/2013
Gaurav @ Goru S/o Sh. Jagishrai, R/o Roopana, Teh. & Distt.
Muktsar, Punjab at present tenant of Sh. Kamal Sharma, Sector
No.9, Behind Government Hospital, Hanumangarh Town.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot
Ms. Vandana Prajapati
Mr. Pankaj Sharma
Mr. Bhawani Singh
Mr. Hanuman
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. H.M. Saraswat for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
Reportable
Arguments concluded on : 24/09/2025
Reserved on: 24/09/2025
Pronounced on : 14/11/2025
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (2 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
1. By way of filing the instant criminal appeals, the accused-
appellants have questioned the validity of the judgment dated
04.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Session Case No.10/2012
(06/2012) (32/11) titled "State v. Gourav @ Goru & Ors.".
whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants for
offences punishable under Section 306 IPC with rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 7 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In
default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous
imprisonment.
Factual Matrix:-
2. The brief facts of the case are that based upon handwritten
information dated 21.03.2011 (Exh.P1), given by Shankar Lal
(PW-1) to the SHO Police Station Nohar, regarding death of Manoj
Kumar, son of his younger brother Deendyal, at the shop
belonging to Manoj Kumar, by way of committing suicide by
hanging himself; inquest proceedings were initiated by the police
officials. Subsequently, the police inspected the site and undertook
the photographs of the deceased as well as site vide Exh.P3 and
Panchnama was prepared vide Exh.P2. The police during the
inquest proceeding No.11/11 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., on
21.03.2011 prepared a memo of recovery (Exh.P4) of the rope
used for hanging while pointing out the details with regard to the
area where the incident happened and prepared a crime detail
form on 21.03.2011 itself. On the next date, the police again
inspected the site and by way of Exh.P5 prepared on 22.03.2011
at around 01:00 PM recovered a suicide note allegedly written by
deceased Manoj Kumar, which was found in a drawer of the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (3 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
counter of shop belonging to the deceased. It has been stated
under the memo that the suicide note was running in three pages,
wherein Serial Nos.1, 2 & 3 were marked and on the last page
suicide note was signed by the deceased and the date 21.03.2011
was mentioned. It has been alleged that the witnesses Shankar
Lal and Prayagchand fortified the fact that the signature and the
handwriting was of deceased Manoj Kumar.
3. Post recovery of the suicide note, a written complaint came
to be filed by Sumitra, wife of deceased, Manoj Kumar on
22.03.2011, which was handed over to the police officials at her
house at 04:15 PM. In the report, Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) stated
that a day before the deceased committed suicide, he appeared
stressed and informed her that he previously engaged in betting
on cricket matches and that although he had discontinued such
activities, he was still being continuously harassed by local
bookies, namely Hanuman Gosai and Ashok Kandoi. She asserted
that on 20.03.2011 the deceased further informed her that
tomorrow a person named Goru would be coming to forcefully
take money from the deceased, whereas the deceased was not
having any outstanding to be paid to them. She further stated
that the deceased informed her that earlier also, these people had
collected 7 to 8 lakh rupees from the deceased and tomorrow
again they were coming to take the money, whereas the deceased
was not in a position to make the payment. She further stated
that she did not think it appropriate to inform her father-in-law
and family members and on the next morning i.e. 21.03.2011, her
husband after taking bath went to the shop and at around 10:30
AM, he committed suicide by hanging himself in the shop in
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (4 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
question. She thus asserted that the above-mentioned persons
had blackmailed her husband and threatened with dire
consequences and thus abetted her husband for committing
suicide. She further stated that prior to committing suicide, her
husband had written a suicide note, which was recovered by the
police and, therefore, she submitted the report in question for
initiating appropriate proceedings against the persons involved.
4. Based upon the typed report, an FIR No.143/2011 dated
22.03.2011 (Exh.26) was registered for the offences punishable
under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. During the course
of investigation, on 01.04.2011 the police officials got the
computer and CPU seized from the shop of the deceased and got
examined through Juneja Enterprises, however, no details with
regard to any involvement in betting or identical business was
found from the computer in question. As per the post-mortem
report (Exh.P10), the death was specified as asphyxia caused by
suicidal hanging. The call details report (Exh.P16) of the phone of
deceased was also gathered and the suicide note was sent to the
FSL for verification of handwriting as well as signature vide letter
dated 13.04.2011 (Exh.P23). The bank account opening form,
cheques etc. were sent for FSL for verification of the signatures of
deceased Manoj Kumar. Post that, the accused Gourav, Hanuman
Gosai, Ashok and Shashikant Bagri were arrested on 30.03.2011,
however, neither any recovery was made from them nor any link
of connecting them as per the call details was found. The FSL
report was received on 27.09.2011 (Exh.P41), wherein it was
fortified that the signature on the suicide note belonged to Manoj
Kumar only. However, as far as the handwriting is concerned, no
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (5 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
opinion was given though proved handwriting samples of deceased
Manoj Kumar were requested to be provided for identification.
Post that, no document was provided and thus the FSL report
remained inconclusive as far as the handwriting of deceased
Manoj Kumar upon the suicide note is concerned. The police filed
the charge-sheet and after framing of charges, the trial
commenced. The following witnesses were examined by the
learned trial Court:-
PW-1 Shankar Lal (Uncle of The person who gave the report
deceased) based upon which inquest
proceedings were initiated.
Further, he fortified the
signature of deceased upon the
suicide note and was also
witness of recovery of suicide
note.
PW-2, Sumitra (wife of Complainant and fortified the
deceased) handwriting of deceased upon
the suicide note and the fact of
deceased informing with regard
to demand being made by the
accused from the deceased.
PW-3, Manoj (relative of Alleges information by the
deceased) deceased with regard to
demand being raised by the
accused.
PW-4, Prayagchand (uncle of Fortified the signature and
deceased) handwriting of deceased upon
the suicide note and recovery
witness of the suicide note and
other exhibits.
PW-5, Iliyas (friend of Alleges information by the
deceased) deceased with regard to
demand made by accused.
PW-6, Dr. Jitender Soni (Medical Affirmed the post-mortem
Jurist) report and stated the cause of
death to be asphyxia by suicidal
hanging.
PW-7, Mahender Kumar Fortified the printing of the E-
(Constable, Police Station mails Exhibits-P11 to P19.
Nohar)
PW-8, Kishan Kumar, (friend of Forfitied information by
deceased) deceased with regard to
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (6 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
demand of money by the
accused.
PW-9, Sitaram (Constable at The person who took the
P.S. Nohar) documents for FSL.
PW-10, Ram Singh (Constable) The person who took the
documents for FSL.
PW-11, Anil Kumar (the Conducted search at the site
Investigating Officer) and the entire investigation.
5. The trial Court, thereafter, recorded the statement of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and post that, the learned trial
Court by way of impugned judgment dated 04.06.2013 convicted
the accused-appellants for offence punishable under Section 306
IPC with 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine in question.
6. Being aggrieved against the same, the present appeals were
filed, which were admitted and this Court vide orders dated
04.07.2013 and 10.07.2013 respectively, had suspended the
sentences of the appellants.
Arguments by learned counsel for the appellants:-
7. Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot, learned counsel for the appellants
Hanuman and Ashok Kumar, raised a doubt with regard to the
recovery of suicide note and emphasised that the suicide note was
planted by the police officials. He submitted that based upon the
information (Exh.P1), inquest proceedings were initiated and on
21.03.2011 itself, the police had prepared the panchnama, took
photographs of the site vide Exh.P3 and even recovered the rope
vide Exh.P4, however, there is no mention of recovery of any
suicide note on that date. He argued that there was no occasion
for the police to go back at the site on the next date when entire
memos were prepared on 21.03.2011 itself, however, without any
reason the police has been shown to reach the site again on
22.03.2011 and, thereafter, the alleged suicide note has been
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (7 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
recovered vide Exh.P5. He further argued that the Investigating
Officer has failed to justify his visit to the site in question on
22.03.2011. He further submitted that post alleged recovery of
the suicide note on 22.03.2011 at 01:00 PM, the same was taken
to the house of complainant Sumitra (wife of deceased) and,
thereafter, she got a typed report prepared from a counsel at
Jodhpur, which she herself admitted in her cross-examination, and
thereby, FIR in question was filed in evening. He further argued
that the entire series of events fortified the fact that suicide note
was planted just with a view to implicate the present appellants. It
was argued that the time of recovery of suicide note and lodging
of the FIR within three hours thereafter and prior to that, the wife
of deceased taking assistance from a counsel at Jodhpur for
lodging of the FIR itself fortified the fact that the entire recovery
and the lodging of FIR was scripted with a view to implicate the
present appellants only for the reason that the deceased had to
make payment of certain amount to them.
8. He further argued that the writing on the suicide note was
not at all proved as far as witnesses Shankar Lal (PW-1) and
Prayagchand (PW-4) are concerned. They have admitted the fact
of both staying away from the house of the deceased and having
separated almost 15-20 years ago. He argued that the
handwriting was not at all proved in the FSL report also and
further there was no connecting link to connect the accused-
appellants as even the details with regard to the call, being made
to them by deceased or being received by the deceased from their
mobile were not found in the call details record (Exh.16) also.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (8 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
9. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that
neither any recovery of any accounts etc. has been made from the
possession of the accused-appellants nor there is anything to
implicate them except for an averment made by Smt. Sumitra
(PW-2), which itself was planned by the prosecution only for the
purpose of falsely implicating the accused-appellants. He further
argued that as far as the recovery of suicide note is concerned,
both the recovery witnesses Shankar Lal (PW-1) and Prayagchand
(PW-4) have also not stated anything as to why the police came
upon the site and had admitted that the names of the accused
were disclosed by the police officials. He argued that the
Prayagchand had admitted that all the signatures on the memos
were prepared by the police at the police station, which itself
fortified the fact that the appellants have been falsely implicated
and the memos have been prepared as an afterthought at the
police station itself. He further argued that the statements of
Iliyas, Manoj and Kishan Kumar do not inspire any confidence as
they have not specified as to why the deceased would have
informed them about the alleged amount due to be paid by him to
the appellants. Rather their ignorance for the amount due and
what was the total due itself fortified the fact that they have also
been implanted by the police officials. He, therefore, prays for
allowing the appeals and acquitting the appellants.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Sharma
appearing for appellant Gourav @ Goru, while reiterating the
arguments raised by Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot, emphasised that, even
if, the entire story of the prosecution is treated to be proved, then
too, the necessary ingredients of offence punishable under Section
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (9 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
306 IPC are missing in the case in hand and no conviction order
for the offence in question could have been passed by the learned
trial Court based upon the evidence available on record. He has
referred to the provisions of Sections 107 and 306 IPC while
emphasizing that there has to be an instigation on the part of the
accused or engagement in doing a conspiracy and an act or illegal
omission taking place pursuant to that conspiracy or there should
be intentional aid of doing of an act or illegal omission for the
purpose of abetting a thing. In the present case, none of the
ingredients were available on record. He further argued that there
was no abetment proved in the case in hand and simply because
money due was demanded from the deceased, this cannot be
treated as an abetment. To fortify his argument, he relied upon
the judgment passed by the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh", (2025) 4
SCC 801 and "Rajesh v. State of Haryana", (2020) 15 SCC
359 as well as judgment dated 01.05.2019 passed by this Court
in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 532/2018 "Raju v. State of
Rajasthan" and judgment dated 28.08.2025 passed by this Court
in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1508/2023 "Haribhajan
Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.".
11. Learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out
various words used in the suicide note at page nos. 1 and 2,
specifically while pointing out difference in the font, as also,
referring to the suicide note, more particularly at the end of page
no.1 and the starting of page no.2, showing that there is no
co-relation between the lines and page no.2 being added later on,
wherein the names of the appellants specified were added by the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (10 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
prosecution only with a view to implicate the present appellants.
He argued that a perusal of the suicide note, through a naked eye,
itself will reveal that the font of page nos.1 and 3 are common and
font of page no.2 is entirely different. He argued that in spite of
the FSL report specifying submitting of additional admitted
documents to fortify the handwriting, non-supply of the same
demolishes the entire case of the prosecution. He further pointed
out to the statement of Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) while emphasizing
that initially inquest proceedings were initiated and she did not
even whisper anything for a period of more than 24 hours with
regard to the suicide being attributed to the demand made by the
appellants from the deceased for repayment of money. It was only
post alleged suicide note has been shown to be recovered (that
too, under suspicious circumstances) that the FIR has been lodged
and, that too, by way of seeking legal assistance. He further
referred to the statement of Anil Kumar (PW-11), the
Investigating Officer wherein he admitted that the site in question
was locked after search and the keys were with the family
members of the deceased and it was them only, who opened it on
the next day. He thus argued that the question of implanting of
the suicide note either by the police or the family members cannot
be ruled out, as also, not a single family member has supported
the version of Investigation Officer nor the I.O. has been able to
point out as to who opened the lock of the place, where the
suicide note was found. He, therefore, emphasized that there is no
material available on record to implicate the present appellants
and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (11 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appeals filed by the
appellants deserve to be allowed.
Arguments by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned
counsel for the complainant:-
12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order
impugned and argued that the learned Trial Court has considered
the entire evidence in its correct perspective and, thereafter,
passed the conviction order. The learned Public Prosecutor,
referring to the suicide note, argued that the suicide note itself
was very specific, wherein all the three appellants have been
named, while also specifically emphasizing that the instigation and
the corresponding suicide by the deceased for the same reason is
proved by the suicide note itself.
13. The learned counsel for the complainant while supporting the
argument made by the learned Public Prosecutor emphasized that
the FSL report proved the signature of the deceased upon the
suicide note thus, the veracity of the suicide is not questionable.
He further emphasized that handwriting of the deceased upon the
suicide note was proved by Shankar Lal (PW-1), Prayagchand
(PW-4), Kishan Kumar (PW-8) and Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) and no
question regarding the knowledge of the handwriting was asked
during the cross-examination of the above witnesses. He,
therefore, argued that the objection with regard to the veracity of
suicide note cannot be raised by the appellants. He further argued
that apart from the suicide note; the demand, harassment and
instigation on the part of the appellants, soon before death was
proved by the statements of Iliyas (PW-5), Smt. Sumitra (PW-2)
and Kishan Kumar (PW-8). He further argued that as far as
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (12 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
recovery of the suicide note is concerned, the I.O. specified that
on 21.03.2011, the entire premise could not be searched by him
and only a portion where suicide was committed, was searched by
him. He further argued that the the suicide note has been found in
the presence of recovery witnesses i.e. Shankar Lal (PW-1) and
Prayagchand (PW-4) by the Investigating Officer. He thus argued
that the recovery of suicide note and the contents of the suicide
note itself were sufficient to convict the appellants and the Trial
Court has dealt with each and every argument raised in the cases
also, while convicting the appellants. He, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the appeals.
Reasoning and Analysis:-
14. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on
behalf of both the parties and perused the record. For sake of
convenience, the issue argued and being considered are
segregated as under:-
(i) Recovery of Suicide Note:-
15. First and foremost, as far as the argument with regard to the
inquest proceedings and recovery of the suicide note are
concerned, a bare perusal of Exh.P1 written by Shankar Lal (PW-
1) will reveal that initially an information with regard to suicidal
death of deceased Manoj Kumar was received by the SHO, Police
Station, Nohar on 21.03.2011, upon which, inquest proceedings
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated on the same day at
around 11:00 AM. Post that memo of panchnama as well as memo
of recovery of rope, used for hanging and photographs of dead
body and site were prepared on same day i.e. 21.03.2011.
Thereafter, on the next day upon fresh inspection, suicide note
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (13 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
was recovered and post lodging of FIR, fresh crime details form
(Exh.P7) was prepared. Interestingly, the witnesses for
preparation of crime detail form were Prayagraj and Raj Kumar,
whereas the witnesses of recovery of suicide note were
Prayagchand and Shankarlal. Raj Kumar has not at all been
examined by the prosecution. Furthermore, no satisfactory
reasons have been given, as to why the suicide note could not be
recovered on the same day, when the site was inspected on
21.03.2011 itself and even the rope, used for suicide, was
recovered on the same date as well as panchnama & memo of
photographs have also been taken on the same day. The
statement of PW-11 (the Investigation Officer), Anil Kumar will
itself reveal that during the course of the cross-examination, a
specific question was asked to him, wherein he had admitted that
in case of suicide, the first thing police searches is the suicide
note. He, however, admitted that on 21.03.2011 he did not search
the entire premises and did not examine any witness nor did he
prepare the site memo. He strangely specified that at the relevant
time, the family was busy in undertaking the last rites, therefore,
they could not do the needful. However, he admitted that he had
handed over the body to the relatives of deceased at around 2:30
PM on 21.03.2011 and, post that, he did not undertake any work
pertaining to the case in hand. He further admitted that post 2:30
PM, neither any lock was fixed upon the premises nor any police
official was deputed at the premises in question, where the suicide
took place. He further admitted the fact that on the next day, the
family members of the deceased opened the lock, however, he did
not specify as to who opened the lock nor had any witness been
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (14 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
examined by the prosecution to prove as to who opened the lock
of the premises in question. He further admitted that after
receiving the alleged suicide note, he went to the family of the
deceased and there itself, after some time the typed report Exh.P9
was submitted by Smt. Sumitra, wife of deceased. This part of the
statement of the Investigating Officer, coupled with the statement
of Shankar Lal (PW-1), the person who had lodged the initial
report, based upon which inquest proceedings were initiated, will
reveal that the entire process of recovery of the suicide note itself
is in a shadow of doubt. Shankar Lal (PW-1) at the first instance,
admitted that Exh.P1 is not written in his handwriting as he had
very low vision. He admitted that Exh.P1 was written by the
counsel named Prahlad Singh. He further admitted that on
21.03.2011, he did not inform the police as to why the deceased
committed suicide and further admitted that he was not aware
about the reason. He further admitted that prior to availability of
suicide note, neither the father of deceased Manoj Kumar nor his
family members had informed anything about committing suicide.
He further admitted that on the next day, in the evening, the
police informed him about the name of four accused. He further
admitted that the police had shown him the suicide note and
informed him that the same was received from the shop of
deceased Manoj Kumar. He, thereafter, submitted that he was
present at the site. Prayagchand (PW-4) i.e. witness of Exh.P7
(the site memo) as well as the witness of recovery of the suicide
note vide Exh.P5 admitted that the police came upon the site on
the next day and, thereafter, the recovery of the suicide note was
made. He, however, showed his ignorance when a question was
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (15 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
asked about how long it took the police to arrive at site in
question on the first date i.e. 21.03.2011. He further submitted
that he is not aware as to when did the police reach at the site on
the next day. On frequent questions being asked, he admitted that
he is not aware whether the police came on the next date at
around 8:00-9:00 AM in the morning or 10:00 AM or around 7-
8/9:00 PM in the evening. He further admitted that he is not
aware when the memos were prepared by the police and had
rather stated that the memos were signed by him at the police
station only. He had further stated that his signature upon Exh.P8
i.e. suicide note were got done at the police station only. He
further admitted that Shankar Lal (PW-1) has not got the
signature of his own on Exh.P8 marked during the course of his
statement. He further admitted that he is not aware as to when he
signed Exh.P7 i.e. site plan.
16. Needless to emphasise that as far as recovery of the suicide
note is concerned, Shankar Lal (PW-1) during his examination in
chief, has not even referred to Exh.P8 or specified that he signed
Exh.P8. He has rather stated that the deceased Manoj Kumar had
signed the said Exhibit. Prayagchand (PW-4) on the other side,
has admitted that his signatures upon the exhibits were made at
the police station itself and not at the site. PW-11, the
Investigating Officer, on the other hand, has admitted that after
receiving the suicide note, he went to the house of the deceased
and post that, the report Exh.P9 was lodged by Smt. Sumitra, wife
of the deceased. These circumstances as well as the fact of non-
examination of the witness, who had opened the lock nor his
details being specified by the Investigating Officer or any other
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (16 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
witness, as also, considering the fact that no police official was
deputed at the site in question, make the credibility of recovery of
the suicide note very doubtful and the chances of implanting of
the suicide note cannot be ruled out. This aspect of matter has not
at all been considered by the learned Trial Court. Furthermore,
when the police officials had inspected the site, recovered the
rope, prepared panchnama and took the photographs etc., the
non-recovery of the suicide note on the date in question, as also,
no data including Rojnamcha being submitted to fortify as to when
and why the police went upon the site in question on the next
date, throws suspicion over the story of the prosecution with
regard to recovery of the suicide note. The statement of
Investigating Officer that he was free with all the proceedings at
around 02:30 PM on 21.03.2011 and post that, he did not do
anything itself threw a shadow of doubt on the prosecution's story
regarding the recovery of the suicide note, as the Investigating
Officer had sufficient time to conduct the inspection and could
have rather recovered the suicide note on 21.03.2011 itself.
17. Interestingly, Prayagchand, witness of Exh.P7, in whose
presence the suicide note was shown to have been recovered, has
not supported the version of prosecution and has stated that his
signatures were obtained at the police station. The other witness
Rajkumar had not been examined by the prosecution. This,
coupled with the fact that the witness Shankar Lal, who had
signed the Exh.P5 i.e. the memo of recovery of suicide note, has
admitted that he is having very low vision and that is the reason
he could not write the complaint for inquest (Exh.P1) and the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (17 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
same was written by a counsel, would show that the recovery of
the suicide note and his presence there itself is doubtful.
18. Interestingly, the statement of Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) will
itself reveal that the alleged suicide note was handed over to her
by the police officials in the afternoon on 22.03.2011 and,
thereafter, she had submitted the complaint. She further admitted
that from 21.03.2011, till the submission of the complaint, the
police did not take her statement. She further stated that the
police had informed her the name of accused-appellants, which
were mentioned in the suicide note. She further admitted that the
complaint (Exh.P9) was typed on computer and was prepared by
Jhawarlal Soni, Advocate at Jodhpur, who had got it typed and
thereafter, handed over to her. Her statement will itself reveal that
post recovery of the alleged suicide note, the FIR in question was
lodged and, that too, after taking legal support from a lawyer at
Jodhpur. Thus, up till the recovery of alleged suicide note, there
was no complaint filed by her and she did not give any statement
to the police during the inquest proceedings. These entire set of
facts and circumstances collectively dent the story of the
prosecution with regard to recovery of suicide note.
19. Firstly the prosecution has not been able to specify the
reason as to why the suicide note was not recovered on
21.03.2011 itself when the site was inspected.
20. Secondly, no police official was posted at the premise in
question and further the person who had opened the premise on
the next day, was not examined which also throws a shadow of
doubt with regard to the premise in question being in a sealed
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (18 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
position and there being no chance of somebody planting the
suicide note at a later stage.
21. Thirdly, the witness of the site in question as well as
recovery of suicide note, emphasizing that all the memos were
prepared at the police station itself, as well as non-examination of
another witness Raj Kumar, collectively demolish the story of
prosecution with regard to recovery of the suicide note and
preparation of site memo.
22. Fourthly, Shankarlal (PW-1) has not been able to point out
any specific time as to when the suicide note was recovered nor
he has asserted the fact of his signature being there on Exh.P8 i.e.
suicide note, during the course of his examination-in-chief and,
has further, shown his inability to even write a document because
of his low vision as he was above 65 years of age. These facts
throw a shadow of doubt about the entire recovery of a suicide
note in question.
23. Fifthly, no Rojnamcha entry has been placed on record to
show as to why and when did the police go to the site on the next
date, nor any reasons have been specified for the same by the
investigating officer. This also throws a shadow of doubt with
regard to the investigation being conducted in an impartial and
improper manner
(ii) Writing of the deceased upon the suicide note in
question:-
24. I find substance in the arguments of counsel for the
appellants regarding the prosecution failing to prove the writing of
the deceased upon the suicide note in question. The counsel for
the appellants had raised a doubt with regard to writing upon the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (19 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
page no.2 of the suicide note and continuity of the suicide note.
The FSL report Exh.P41 though fortified the fact of signature upon
page no.3 of the suicide note being that of the deceased only,
however, has failed to verify as to whether handwriting on the
suicide note was of the deceased only for the reason of non supply
of admitted documents of the deceased for FSL. In spite of such a
note, no samples of admitted documents were sent by the
investigating agency, and this fact definitely goes in favour of
accused appellants.
25. This coupled with the fact that a perusal of the suicide note
will reveal that first last line of the first page states that:
"ये सब नुक़सान क्रिकेट में हुआ है A मैंus क्रिकेट छोड़ दी थी" and the second page
starts with: "बाज़ार में मेरा कोई कर्जा नहीं है ।" whereas the third page of
the suicide note starts with: "अबू भाई जी मेरे से भयंकर भूल हो गई।"
26. A bare perusal of the suicide note will reveal that there is no
continuity of sentence as far as page no.1 and 2 is concerned
however, there is a continuity of sentence as far as page nos.1
and 3 is concerned. This coupled with the fact that if the words
used in page no.1 and page no.3 are seen, they are identical,
however, various letters including 'd' and 'e' in page no.2 are in
entirely different font. Although, Court is not an expert as far as
the handwriting is concerned, however, in view of the provisions of
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides as under:
"73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with
others admitted or proved.- In order to ascertain
whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the
person by whom it purports to have been written or
made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved
to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or
made by that person may be compared with the one
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (20 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
which is to be proved, although that signature, writing,
or seal has not been produced or proved for any other
purpose.
The Court may direct any person present in Court
to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling
the Court to compare the words or figures so written
with any words or figures alleged to have been written
by such person."
the Court has been given the power to compare the writing,
signature or seal.
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the identical
provision under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, in the case
of Sukhvinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 5 SCC 152, has
held as under:
"17. We shall now take up the case of Sukhdev Paul appellant.
For the reasons already recorded while dealing with the case of
Puran Chand, we hold that the so-called disclosure statement,
Exh. PW10/C, made by him is also inadmissible and cannot be
used to connect him with the crime. The only other circumstance
relied upon by the prosecution against him is that he is the author
of the ransom letters Exh. PA and Exh. PC. To establish that the
author of letters Exs. PA and PC is Sukhdev Paul, the prosecution
has relied upon the report of the Asstt. Director (Documents),
Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh dated 12.6.1992 Exh.
PW10/J. The specimen writing of Sukhdev Paul was taken by the
Tehsildar Magistrate PW13. It would, therefore, be relevant to first
notice the provisions of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. It reads:
"73. Comparison of Signature, writing or seal with
others admitted or proved.-In order to ascertain whether a
signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it
purports to have been written or made, any signature,
writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the
Court to have been written or made by that person may be
compared with the one which is to be proved, although that
signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved
for any other purpose.
The Court may direct any person present in Court to write
any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (21 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
to compare the words or figures so written with any words
or figures alleged to have been written by such person.
18. Under the Indian Evidence Act, two direct methods of
proving the handwriting of a person are:
(a) by an admission of a person who wrote it;
(b) by the evidence of some witness who saw it being
written by that person.
Apart from these, there are some other methods of proof of
handwriting by opinion. They are:
(1) by the evidence of a handwriting expert (Section
45).
(2) by the evidence of a witness acquainted with the
handwriting of the person who is said to have written the
disputed writing (Section 47).
(3) opinion formed by the Court itself on comparison
made of the disputed writings with the admitted or
specimen writings (Section 73).
We are concerned here primarily with the third mode.
19. A subsequent writing of an accused taken under the
direction of the court is in substance a specimen writing
obtained for comparison of the disputed writing with it. Though,
Section 73 does not specifically say as to who could make such
a comparison but reading Section 73 as a whole, it is obvious
that it is the Court which has to make the comparison and it
may form the opinion itself by comparing the disputed and the
admitted writings or seek the assistance of an expert, to put
before the Court all the material, together with reasons, which
induce the expert to come to a conclusion that the disputed and
the admitted writings are of one and the same author so that
the court may form its own opinion by its own assessment of
the report of the expert based on the data furnished by the
expert. The function of a handwriting expert if to opine after a
scientific comparison of the disputed writing with the admitted
(specimen) writing with regard to the points of similarity and
dissimilarity in the two set of writings."
28. Taking guidance from the abovementioned judgment, a bare
perusal of comparison of page 1 and 3, admitted writing of
documents Exh.P29 vis-a-vis page 2 of the alleged suicide note
will reveal that the font of various words and the pattern of writing
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (22 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
specially letter 'd', 'e' and 'य'will reveal that the same is in totally
different font. Thus, whether the suicide note in toto was written
by the deceased is again not proved by the prosecution and the
argument raised by counsel for the appellants holds substance,
inasmuch as, the page nos.1 and 3 are apparently in a different
handwriting as compared to page no.2 of the suicide note.
29. As far as the handwriting upon the suicide note is concerned,
the witness who had asserted the same, i.e. Shankarlal (PW-1)
has admitted that he was separated from the family of the
deceased Manoj Kumar around 15 to 20 years ago and has further
stated that he is not having a proper eye sight to write an
application and that he got the application for inquest (Exh.P1)
also prepared from a counsel due to his low eye sight. Thus, his
averment with regard to recognising the handwriting of the
deceased is without any substance. The same is the case with
Prayagchand (PW-4) who also admitted that he had separated
with the family of the deceased around 20 years ago. He has
further admitted that he did not check the account books or copies
of Manoj Kumar and has further admitted that his signature upon
the exhibits were marked at the police station itself. Thus, a
person staying away from the family for last 20 years would have
no occasion to recognise the handwriting of the deceased,
moreover, he has not pointed out any reason to know the writing
of the deceased. Thus, his statement cannot be relied upon. Smt.
Sumitra (PW-2) though had all the reasons to know the writing of
deceased, has not admitted that all the three pages of the suicide
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (23 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
note were written in the handwriting of her husband only. Thus,
the writing upon the entire suicide note has not been proved by
the prosecution and it cannot be established that the entire suicide
note was written in the handwriting of deceased only. The non
furnishing of details of admitted documents before the forensic
laboratory and the corresponding report of the forensic laboratory
Exh.P41 demolishes the claim of prosecution with regard to
writing of the deceased on the suicide note.
30. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhinav Mohan
Delkar vs The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. 2025 INSC 990
held that:-
36. It was later, even according to the FIS; on 01.03.2021, the
suicide note was handed over to the appellant, when enquiries
were made with the police. The appellant registers the FIR, still
later on 09.03.2021. There is nothing produced either by the
appellant or the State to show that the suicide note was recovered
along with the body; which definitely would have been indicated in
the Mahazar recorded at the inquest. There is also no verification
carried out of the handwriting in the suicide note, juxtaposed with
the admitted handwriting of the deceased. Above all, the suicide
note makes pointed allegations against named individuals, which
was not done earlier. It is for the first time that the Administrator
was mentioned, with an allegation of extortion and attempt to
forcefully take-over a Trust and the college it runs. The actions of
the officers of the administration, alleged to be a direct result of
the conspiracy hatched by the Administrator to coerce the
petitioner, was never raised any time earlier. We cannot place any
absolute reliance on the suicide note, to ferret out a case of
abetment, allegations in which were not disclosed in the written
complaint to the Hon'ble Speaker or the statements made before
the Committee of Privileges.
Taking guidance from the abovementioned judgment and the facts
discussed above, the writing on the suicide note has not at all been
proved as also no reasons specified as to why the suicide note was
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (24 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
not recovered/discovered while conducting the inspection on the
first instance. Thus, writing on entire suicide note of deceased has
not been proved, nor has its recovery been satisfactorily explained
by prosecution.
(iii) False implication of the accused:-
31. One of the arguments of counsel for the appellants is that
post gathering of the alleged suicide note, the accused-appellants
have falsely been implicated. As far as the role of accused is
concerned, apart from the suicide note, the analysis of the
statement of three witnesses would be important. Manoj (PW-3) in
his examination in chief, had informed that the deceased was in
tension on 21.03.2011 (next day of Holy, which was on
20.03.2011) at around 08:30 PM and at that time, upon asking,
he told that 4-5 people were harassing him as there were certain
financial outstandings with them. He further stated that the
deceased named all the four persons, however, during the course
of his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not aware
about any loss caused to the deceased Manoj Kumar due to
betting in cricket nor was he aware as to whether the information
about harassment was given to parents or brothers of deceased.
He further admitted that he did not use to talk to deceased Manoj
Kumar earlier and that he did not suggest the deceased Manoj
Kumar to lodge a complaint with the police officials. He further
admitted that he was not aware as to who were the persons
demanding money from Manoj Kumar nor was he aware of
whether Manoj Kumar had any outstanding amount to be repaid to
anyone.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (25 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
32. A bare perusal of the statement of Manoj (PW-3) will reveal
that firstly, the date suggested by him was incorrect as on
21.03.2011 Manoj Kumar had already committed suicide.
Secondly, he was not aware about the details of any outstanding
of Manoj Kumar and further was not aware of the name of the
persons who used to come to shop of Manoj Kumar to demand
money and has further admitted that he did not have much
proximity with deceased earlier, which itself shows that there was
no proximity between him and Manoj Kumar to share the name of
the appellants with him. He further admitted that he was a
relative of Manoj Kumar, thus, his evidence is required to be
carefully scrutinised and the same appears to be planted only for
the reason of implicating the accused.
33. Iliyas (PW-5) is a taxi driver, who in his examination-in-chief
had stated that on 20th March, he met Manoj Kumar and asked
him the reason of his being upset, however, Manoj Kumar did not
inform anything initially, however subsequently informed him that
he had suffered losses in cricket betting and had thereafter named
the appellants. He, however, admitted that Manoj Kumar had not
informed him whether other persons were also demanding money
from him and he did not know as to how much was due in the
market from Manoj Kumar. He further admitted that he had not
given the details with regard to demand being raised by the
appellants again from Manoj Kumar, in his police statement
(Exh.D2). He further admitted that Manoj Kumar did not inform
him about the losses he suffered due to cricket betting. He further
admitted that he was present at the time when the police came
post suicide of Manoj Kumar, however, he did not inform the police
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (26 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
on that date with regard to deceased committing suicide because
of losses caused in cricket betting.
34. A perusal of the statement of witness will further make it
clear that he has resiled from his police statement (Exh.D2) and
has not even pointed out any circumstances, which could come
within the definition of abetment on the part of appellants for
Manoj Kumar committing suicide. Kishan Kumar (PW-8) had
stated that he was a close friend of deceased Manoj Kumar. He
further stated that appellants Hunuman Gosai and Ashok Kandoi
used to come upon the shop of deceased and both used to came
separately and not together. He stated that after talking to them,
when Manoj Kumar went to his shop, he was tensed and, on
asking, he refused to inform anything, however, subsequently
informed that he was tensed due to people demanding money
from him. Further, he admitted in his cross-examination that
Manoj Kumar did not inform him openly about the dues or
anything but he admitted that many people were demanding
money from deceased Manoj Kumar. He essentially did not
emphasise that the accused instigated Manoj Kumar to commit
suicide.
35. Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) has stated that on 20.03.2011, her
husband was tensed. On asking, he informed the name of four
appellants, while asserting that they were threatening to kill him
as they were demanding money. She had stated that she informed
the same to Sunil, however, Sunil had told her to not inform about
this to anybody else. During the course of her cross-examination,
she admitted that she had not informed the family members or
anybody else with regard to appellants threatening the deceased.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (27 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
She further admitted that Manoj Kumar was always tensed and
had suffered losses in all the businesses he had done. She further
admitted that her husband was involved in betting and drugs also.
She further showed her ignorance with regard to the outstanding
due from Manoj Kumar in the market. She further admitted that
deceased had informed her about his tension just 2-3 days prior
and not on any date prior to that. She further admitted that no
complaint was lodged against the appellants by deceased Manoj
Kumar. She further admitted that she was not aware about
accused coming to her house to demand money from her
husband. She further submitted that her husband stated that he
was not in a position to repay the amount and admitted that her
husband was involved in betting in cricket for last 4 to 5 years and
her husband never informed about how much the loss or profit he
gained from the same. She further admitted that she had not seen
her husband writing the details regarding the persons who were
demanding money from him. A perusal of her statement along
with the fact that complaint was lodged after recovery of the
alleged suicide note, as also, non-examination of Sunil, throw
shadow of doubt with regard to the story of prosecution and the
statement of Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) who herself admitted that her
husband was involved in betting and she was not aware as to how
much amount was due in the market from him, as also, she
admitted that her husband did not inform her till the date (except
for 2-3 days prior to the incident) regarding the demand being
made. These all facts collectively makes the statement of Smt.
Sumitra (PW-2) not sufficient to bring home the offence under
Section 306 IPC, as neither abetment to commit suicide is proved,
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (28 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
nor is she in a position to give a specific stand as to when
demand was made by the accused and what was the amount due.
Thus, the argument made by counsel for the appellants is having
substance with regard to implication of the accused only for the
reason that the deceased was to pay certain outstanding amount
to them being the losses sustained by the deceased during cricket
betting.
(iv) Whether offence under Section 306 IPC is made out
only for the reason of demand of money:-
36. As far as the provisions of Sections 107 and 307 IPC are
concerned, the same provide 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."
"306. Abetment of suicide. --If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
37. A clear reading of the plain language of these Sections will
reveal that to attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, the
accused should have abetted the commission of suicide. When
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (29 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
Section 306 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. A person is said to abet the doing of a
thing, who instigate any person to do that thing; or engages in
conspiracy with one or more persons for doing of that thing, and if
the act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to commit that thing; or intentionally
aids, by an act or illegal omission. In the present case, it was the
duty of the prosecution to prove that the appellants did any wilful
conduct, which is of such nature, as is likely to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide.
38. As far as the provisions of Section 306 IPC are concerned,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of
M.P." 1995 SCC (Cri) 943 has held in Para 3 as under:
"3. Those words are casual in nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between
quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to
follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the
requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these
words would be carried out in all events."
39. In the case of "Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh"
(2001) 9 SCC 618 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do 'an act'. 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. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not
a case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (30 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
left with no other option except to commit suicide in
which case an instigation may have been inferred. A
word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation."
40. The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC, which is long
settled, was reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2004) 13 SCC
129, the same reads in paras 12 and 13 as under:
"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."
41. Further, in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., reported
in (2007)10 SCC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a
clear exposition of Section 107 IPC, and it was 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
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (31 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
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 anything.
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."
42. 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. In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan & Anr. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held 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."
43. In "Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal" (2010) 1 SCC
707, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 12 as under: -
"12. 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
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (32 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
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 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."
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 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."
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (33 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
44. Subsequently, in the case of "M. Mohan v. State" (2011) 3
SCC 626 the Hon'ble Apex Court, had held in Para 45 as under:
"45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court are 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 this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she
committed suicide."
45. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno
and Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police reported in (2023) 15
SCC 560 held as under: -
"45. 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."
46. 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 held 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."
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (34 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
47. Furthermore, this Court in the case of "Mangal Singh v.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.": S.B. Criminal Revision Petition
No.1155/2023, decided on 24.01.2025 had an occasion to deal
with various judgments dealing with the issue in hand and held that
even if all the evidence on record including the charge-sheet and
statements of witnesses are taken to be correct, and if there is no
iota of evidence against the petitioner, then charges should not be
framed. It was further observed that if it cannot be shown that the
deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the
unfortunate act of the suicide and the motive to abet suicide is also
not provided, then the necessary ingredients of proceeding with
trial under Section 306 IPC are not made out. It was held as
under:-
"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.
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
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (35 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
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."
48. 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 held 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 uttered in the fit of anger or
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (36 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
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.
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
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (37 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
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 above referred
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
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (38 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306IPC
is not sustainable."
49. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Mahendra
Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh", (2025) 4 SCC 801 while
dealing with the earlier judgments, held as under:-
"16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 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."
"19. 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."
"22. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts
created circumstances which left the deceased with no other
option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the
appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not
with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to
commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic
approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind.
Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two
months and twenty days."
50. Recently again, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"Ayyub v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr." 2025 INSC 168
in Criminal Appeal No.461/2025 by way of its judgment dated
07.02.2025, while reiterating the observations made in the case of
Mahendra Awase (supra) and while considering all other
judgments on the issue, held as under:
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (39 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
"21. We find none of the ingredients required in law to make out a
case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned inthe
charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record.
The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true
cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased
Tanu with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. The
surrounding circumstances, particularly the prior lodgment of the
FIR by the first appellant against the family of Tanu for the death
of his son Ziaul Rahman, does indicate an element of desperation
on the part of the respondent no. 2 to somehow implicate the
appellants. Reliance of the statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. belatedly on 07.11.2022,08.11.2022 and 22.11.2022, only
reinforces out suspicion viz. one-sided, partial and inimical
investigation. Under these circumstances, proceeding with the trial
against the appellants in the charge-sheet as filed will be a gross
abuse of process."
51. In the present case, the abetment of suicide has been
contended to be in the form of demanding money. In this regard,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in many cases that mere
demanding of money would not amount to abetment of suicide. In
the case of Mohit Singhal & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand &
Ors. (2024) 1 SCC 417, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: -
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.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (40 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing
but an abuse of the process of law.
52. This Court recently while dealing with the provisions of
Section 306 IPC had an occasion to point out the necessary
ingredients for abetment to commit suicide in the case of S.B.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1508/2023 (Haribhajan Ram
v. State & Anr.) and after dealing with the various judgments of
Supreme Court and consideration of the provisions of Section 107
and 306 IPC, has held that the burden lies on the prosecution to
prove that the words uttered or the act committed were sufficient
to instigate the commitment of suicide by the deceased and rather
leaves no other option available to the deceased except to commit
suicide.
53. Considering the entire case on the subject in question, even
if, averment made by the prosecution is admitted to be true as it
is that the money was being demanded by the appellants from the
deceased, then too, in the opinion of the Court, the necessary
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC are
not made out in the cases in hand. The prosecution has failed to
prove that the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide
and further the proximity of the demand and the suicide has also
not been proved by the prosecution. Even otherwise, merely
demanding the money, due or otherwise, would not make out the
necessary ingredients of abetment to commit suicide, more
particularly, when there is an admission with regard to the
deceased being involved in cricket betting and sustaining losses
and he had to repay the amount due to many persons.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (41 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
Conclusion:-
54. These aspects of the matter have not at all been considered
by learned Trial Court. The prosecution has failed to prove that the
act of demanding money (whether justified or forcible) by itself
constituted the necessary instigation, leaving the deceased with
no other option but to commit suicide. No direct or indirect act of
incitement to commit suicide has been brought on record by the
prosecution. Even if the instigation from the alleged suicide note
as well as the story of the prosecution is admitted, then too, at
maximum there can be allegation of harassment, however, none of
the ingredients of incitement to commit suicide are made out.
Thus, this ground by itself is sufficient to acquit the accused-
appellants irrespective of the findings given in the earlier
paragraphs.
55. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned
judgment dated 04.06.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case
No.10/2012 (06/2012) (32/11) pertaining to the FIR No.143/2011
at Police Station, Nohar, whereby the appellants were convicted
for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC is quashed and set
aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted for the offence under
Section 306 IPC. The bail bonds are discharged and the accused-
appellants need not surrender.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
208-Love/-
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
