The present Criminal Revision has been filed
impugning the judgment & order dated 15.02.2021
rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, District Pauri
Garhwal, in Session Trial No.02 of 2020, 'State Vs.
Sheetal and others, whereby charge under Section 306,
386 read with Section 34 & 506 of IPC were framed
against the revisionists.
2. According to the prosecution, the deceased had
written a suicide note which was recovered from the spot.
It is alleged therein that the revisionists and other
accused persons had threatened the deceased to pay a
sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, failing which they would kill his
minor son. It is further alleged that the revisionists and
the co-accused had earlier extorted money from the
deceased between the years 2009 to 2013, and thereafter
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has
submitted that the said suicide note is a forged and
fabricated document and, therefore, cannot be relied
upon. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is presumed
that the suicide note is genuine, still no offence is made
out against the revisionists.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has
submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in not
allowing the application filed by the revisionists and that
the FIR was lodged solely on the basis of the alleged
suicide note of the deceased. It is further argued that even
if the suicide note is taken at its face value, no offence of
abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, extortion
under Section 386 IPC, or criminal intimidation under
Section 506 IPC is prima facie made out from the
prosecution case itself.
5. It is not disputed that the deceased committed
suicide on 27.11.2013. During the course of investigation,
the call detail records revealed that the last
communication between the deceased and the co-accused
(wife of the deceased) took place on 01.11.2013,
08.11.2013, and 09.11.2013. The said records further
reveal that the co-accused (wife of the deceased) only
requested the deceased to live with her. It has also come
on record that in the year 2011, an amount of
Rs.20,000/- was transferred by the deceased into the
account of the revisionist no.1 (sister-in-law of the
deceased); hence, no act of abetment, as contemplated
under the aforesaid sections, can be attributed to the
revisionist.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionists would
submit that, to frame a charge under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code, it is incumbent upon the prosecution
to establish, prima facie, through cogent and credible
material on record, that the accused had performed any
overt act or had indulged in any conduct which directly or
indirectly instigated, provoked, aided, or abetted the
deceased in committing suicide.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has
submitted that there is not even a single incriminating
material brought on record which, even prima facie, would
suggest that any act of the revisionists had the effect of
compelling or instigating the deceased to take the extreme
step of ending his life. He has further argued that in the
present case, there exists no genuine suicide note
attributable to the deceased, and, apart from that, none of
the essential ingredients of abetment, as envisaged under
Section 107 IPC, are discernible or attributable to the
conduct of the applicant. Therefore, He has submitted
that no prima facie case under Section 306 IPC is made
out against the revisionists, and the impugned order
rejecting the discharge application is legally unsustainable
and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further
referred to and relied upon the following judicial
pronouncements in support of his submissions:
(iii) Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra
Bhimraj Bijjaya & Others, (1990) 4 SCC 76 : (1990)
3 SCR 633;
(iv) Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. &
Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018)
16 SCC 299 : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of
2013, decided on 28.03.2018;
(v) State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023
INSC 984 (2023) 17 SCC 688;
(vi) Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2022 SCC OnLine MP 3150;
(vii) Nipun Aneja & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
2024 INSC 767 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 4091; and
(viii) Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Others vs. State of
Gujarat, 2025 INSC 322 (2025) SCC OnLine SC
503.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that a suicide note was recovered from the place
of occurrence, wherein the name of the revisionists have
been specifically mentioned, thereby indicating her direct
involvement in the alleged offence. He has further
contended that the said suicide note clearly discloses that
the revisionists, along with other co-accused persons, had
been continuously harassing and threatening the
deceased to pay an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- and, upon
his failure to do so, they threatened to kill his minor son.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent further
submits that the contents of the suicide note are
consistent with the statements of the witnesses recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which corroborate the version
of the prosecution. It is argued that the genuineness of
the suicide note has been verified during investigation and
the handwriting of the deceased has been confirmed
through forensic examination, leaving no scope for doubt
regarding its authenticity.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent further
submits that the conduct of the revisionists prior to the
incident, including repeated demands for money and
issuance of threats, clearly demonstrates a continuous
course of harassment which ultimately drove the deceased
to commit suicide. The offence alleged against the
revisionists squarely attracts the ingredients of abetment
as defined under Section 107 IPC, and the charge under
Section 306 IPC is fully sustainable in law.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents contends
that the arguments advanced by the revisionists seeking
discharge are wholly misconceived and that the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the discharge
application after considering the material on record. The
order impugned, therefore, calls for no interference by this
Court.
13. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record of the case.
14. The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for
consideration are 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 also be liable to fine.
107. Abetment of a thing--A person abets
the doing of a thing, who--
Firstly.-- 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."
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. After going through the record and hearing the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the
parties, this Court is of the opinion that in the present
case, there is no iota of evidence that the revisionists were
involved either actively and passively in instigating or
abetting the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredients
of the offence punishable under Sections 306, 386, 506
read with Section 34 of IPC have remained unproved and
thus the revisionists deserve to be acquitted of the
charges for the offence punishable under Section 306,
386, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
18. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of
interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is limited. Interference can be made
where there is a manifest illegality, perversity, or material
irregularity in the order of the subordinate court, or where
such order results in miscarriage of justice. The revisional
court is not expected to act as an appellate court to re-
appreciate evidence, but it may exercise its jurisdiction to
prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends
of justice.
19. In the present case, the learned Sessions
Judge, while rejecting the discharge application of the
revisionists, has failed to appreciate the settled principles
of law governing the framing of charge under Section 306
IPC. The record reveals that the prosecution material,
even if taken at its face value, does not disclose the
essential ingredients of abetment as defined under Section
107 IPC. There is no cogent evidence of any instigation,
intentional aid, or active participation on the part of the
revisionists that could have driven the deceased to commit
suicide.
20. The alleged suicide note, which forms the sole
basis of the prosecution, is itself disputed, and its
genuineness remains unsubstantiated. Even if presumed
to be genuine for the sake of argument, it does not
contain any proximate or specific act on the part of the
revisionists amounting to abetment.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Pal @
Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707; M.
Arjunan vs. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315; and Nipun Aneja &
Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
4091, has categorically held that mere allegations of
harassment or demand, without proof of direct instigation
or an immediate provocation leading to suicide, cannot
constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ayyub and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2025) 3
SCC 334. Paragraph 20 of the aforesaid judgment is
extracted hereunder:-
"20. By a long line of judgments, this Court has
reiterated that in order to make out an offence under
Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by
Section 107IPC on the part of the accused with an
intention to bring about the suicide of the person
concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It
has been further held that the intention of the accused
to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit
suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC (see
Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan
Singh v. State of Gujarat, Further, the alleged
harassment meted out should have left the victim with
no other alternative but to put an end to her life and
that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof
of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide
(see Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. and M. Mohan v.
State and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh)."
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in in the case of
Mahendra Awase Vs. State of M.P., (2025) 4 SCC 801.
Paragraph 16 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted
hereunder:-
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306IPC 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 306IPC.
24. Applying these principles to the facts of the
present case, this Court finds that the prosecution has
failed to make out a prima facie case against the
revisionists. The learned Sessions Judge has committed a
jurisdictional error and material irregularity in rejecting
the discharge application despite the absence of prima
facie necessary ingredients of the offence. Such an order,
if allowed to stand, would amount to abuse of the process
of law.
25. Accordingly, this Court, in the exercise of its
revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.,
finds sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned
order.
26. The criminal revision is allowed. The impugned
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the
discharge application is hereby set aside. The revisionists
stand discharged from the offences punishable under
Sections 306, 386 r/w 34 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
21.11.2025
BS
BALWAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72
a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820,
T SINGH
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346
EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C
3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.11.21 14:12:36 +05'30'
