Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:13573]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 794/2019
1. Bhanwar Singh S/o Heer Singh, Aged About 48 Years, By
Caste Ravana Rajput, Resident Of Village Messiya, Raipur
Police Station, District Pali.
2. Sohan Lal S/o Pukhraj Mali, Aged About 47 Years, By
Caste Mali, Resident Of Bera Mawro Ka Sevaghar, Jaitaran
Police Station, District Pali.
3. Sugan Chand @ Sugna Ram S/o Mishri Lal, Aged About
50 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Bera Mawro Ka
Sevaghar, Jaitaran Police Station, District Pali.
4. Gokla Ram S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 50 Years, By
Caste Mali, Resident Of Bera Saliya Dagla, Raipur Police
Station, District Pali.
5. Babu Lal S/o Pokar Ram, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste
Mali, Resident Of Bera Saliya Dagla, Raipur Police Station,
District Pali.
6. Smt. Champa Devi W/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 49
Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Bera Saliya Dagla,
Raipur Police Station, District Pali.
7. Bhanwar Lal S/o Pokar Ram, Aged About 59 Years, By
Caste Mali, Resident Of Bera Saliya Dagla, Raipur Police
Station, District Pali.
8. Mangi Lal S/o Moti Ram, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste
Mali, Resident Of Bera Saliya Dagla, Raipur Police Station,
District Pali.
9. Sampat Ram S/o Madhu Ram, Aged About 37 Years, By
Caste Mali, Resident Of Bera Saliya Dagla, Raipur Police
Station, District Pali.
10. Amra Ram S/o Madhu Ram, Aged About 42 Years, By
Caste Mali, Resident Of Bera Saliya Dagla, Raipur Police
Station, District Pali.
11. Kailash S/o Gordhan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste
Mali, Resident Of Bera Saliya Dagla, Raipur Police Station,
District Pali.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
(Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13573] (2 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019]
2. Govind Ram S/o Shri Mishri Lal, By Caste Mali, Resident
Of Bera Singadiya, Railmagra, Bar, Raipur Police Station,
District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Udawat
Mr. Shreyesh Ramdev
Mr. Karan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
Mr. Dinesh Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order
Order Reserved on : 11/03/2025
Date of pronouncement: 18/03/2025
Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section
397 /401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 01.12.2018 & 22.04.2019
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District
Pali in Sessions Case No. 29/2015 whereby, the learned Judge
ordered to frame charges against the petitioners for offences
under Sections 341, 323, 365, 306/149 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that a written report was filed by
the complainant before the police stating therein that on
21.05.2015, when his brother was coming back from Fulmal, the
accused persons alongwith 5-6 other persons gave beating to
complainant's brother and robbed a sum of Rs.2 lcs. When his
brother-in-law Kunna Ram, brother Bhagwan Ram and Sohan lal
asked him, he informed that the accused persons had beaten him
and threatened to kill him. On the very next day, Kunna Ram
received a phone call regarding hanging of Kishan lal from a tree.
(Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13573] (3 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019]
On this report, the police registered FIR no. 235/2015 for
offence under Sections 302, 201, 147, 147, 149 IPC and started
investigation. After due investigation, the police filed chargesheet
against the present petitioners for the offence under Sections 323,
341, 365, 306/149 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to
the court of Sessions from where it was committed for trial to the
court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali ordered
to frame charges against the petitioners for offences under
Sections 323, 341, 365, 306/149 IPC. Hence, this present revision
petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that
no offence under Sections 306/149, 365 of IPC is made out
against the petitioners as there is no evidence pointing out
complicity of the petitioners in commission of offence. It is argued
that the complainant's brother Bhagwan lal, Sohan lal and
brother-in-law Kunna Ram had met deceased Kishan lal who told
them about the alleged beating given to him but there is neither
any mention with regard to any physical injury caused to him nor
any complaint or report was lodged by Kishan lal. It is argued that
the deceased in his suicide note, had mentioned that the accused
petitioners were annoying him and that he was distressed. Thus,
the accused petitioners did not instigate or abetted the deceased
to commit suicide and therefore, the offence under Section 306
IPC is clearly not made out. Similarly, the offence under Section
365 IPC is also not made out, inasmuch as, as per statement of
the witness, the accused had dropped Kishan lal back. Therefore,
(Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13573] (4 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019]
the trial court has committed an error in framing charge for
offence under Sections 306 of IPC and Section 365 IPC.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the respondent argued that the deceased in his suicide note has
specifically named the present petitioners that they harassed and
beaten him, therefore, he is committing suicide. Further it is
settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge,
the scope of powers conferred under Section 397 Cr.P.C is very
limited. Therefore, the trial court has not committed any error in
framing charge for offence under Sections 341/149, 323/149,
365/149, 306/149 IPC. Learned counsel placed reliance on
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Sudbir Pingle reported in 2000 Cr.L.J 944 and this Court in the
case of Ravindra Kumar Rampuriya Vs. State of Rajasthan
reported in AIR Online 2024 Raj. 928.
I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
From the perusal of FIR and documents on record, the
allegation against the present petitioners is that he harassed and
tortured the deceased Kishan lal, due to which he committed
suicide. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 306 IPC reads
as under :--
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine."
(Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13573] (5 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019]
For commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC,
abetment is the necessary thing, which has been defined in
Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC, reads as under:--
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a
thing, who- (First)- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
(Secondly)-Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(Thirdly)- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,
or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound
to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act"
When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is
clear that there must be: (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in
close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear
mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
The core element of Section 306 of IPC is the intentional
abetment of suicide. Thus, for framing a charge for the offence
under section 306 IPC, the learned court below is to consider
whether the abettor intentionally instigated or aided the
commission of the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or
(Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13573] (6 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019]
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 prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband."
A plethora of Apex Court decisions have crystallized the law (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13573] (7 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] of abetment. Abetment involves the mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigation or intentionally aiding. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
The petitioners should not be charged under Section 306 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to provide any evidence that the petitioners explicitly provoked, goaded, or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The actions attributed to the petitioners, such as assault and abduction, were aimed at intimidating the deceased, but there is no material on record to suggest that these actions directly led to the deceased taking their own life. Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of abetment, which involves active encouragement or provocation to commit suicide. In the absence of such evidence, the petitioners' actions cannot be classified as abetment under the law. Therefore, the petitioners are not liable to be charged under Section 306 IPC. The alleged conduct does not fall within the ambit of "incitement" or "instigation". For an action to be considered as abetment under Section 306, it must be such that it compels the deceased to commit suicide. This compulsion must arise from actions or behavior of the accused that leave the deceased with no alternative but to take such a drastic step. Allegations of assault or abduction, without clear evidence of how these actions directly or immediately led to the suicide, are insufficient. The courts have (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13573] (8 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] emphasized that the proximity of the accused's offending action to the suicide is crucial--such actions must be recent or immediate enough to be seen as the direct catalyst for the victim's decision to end their life.
If there is no evidence showing that these acts directly influenced the deceased's state of mind to the extent of causing suicide, then the accused cannot be held liable for abetment under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, mere allegations without a proximate causal connection between the actions of the accused and the suicide would not suffice to establish a charge under this section.
The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long settled was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab Reported in 1 (2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13573] (9 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., Reported in 2 (2007) 10 SCC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as follows in para 6:
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
"Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."(Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13573] (10 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal Reported in 2009 7 Supreme 289, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:-
"15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13573] (11 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."
The scope and ambit of Section 107 of IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 of IPC has been discussed repeatedly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of different High Courts. In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another Reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police Reported in AIR 2022 SC (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13573] (12 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] 4994 observed as under :-
"This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the Accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in another case of Mohit Singhal Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 3578/2023) dated 01.12.2023 has observed as under :-
"9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide."
Recently, in the case of Prakash and Others v. The (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13573] (13 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 INSC 1020 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients- first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
...
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". It has been held that in order to satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13573] (14 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
...
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It has been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide, however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances.(Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13573] (15 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] ...
26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person.
27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra) reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held that the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior and even the suicide note had been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act had been done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
"11.In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13573] (16 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law."
(emphasis supplied)
28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, observed as follows:-
"20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45) "45. ... It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not sustainable."
Recently, in the case Lamxi Das vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Reported in 2025 INSC 86 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure on the deceased to end the relationship between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased's family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13573] (17 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC."
Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the trial Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet and the witness statements, are taken to be correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the petitioners. There is no allegation against the petitioners of a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing suicide. The prosecution must show that the accused had a motive to abet the suicide. If there is no proof of any active role played by the accused in the events leading up to the suicide the Court may set aside the charge. The actions such as assault or abduction, concerning the relationship between the deceased and the daughter of one of accused, cannot be deemed sufficient to establish abetment of suicide.
In the present case, even if the allegations as contained in the FIR and statements of the witnesses are taken as it is, even then it cannot be said that petitioners have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
So far as allegation under section 365 is concerned, the allegation against the present petitioners is that they abducted the (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13573] (18 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] deceased Kishan lal. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 365 IPC reads as under :--
"365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person.-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
The essence of the offence under Section 365 of the IPC embodies an aggravated form of offence of kidnapping as defined in Sections 360 and 361 and of abduction as defined in Section 362 IPC.The prosecution must prove:
(i) Kidnapping or abduction by the accused.
(ii) The accused thereby intended that the person kidnapped or abducted should be kept in wrongful or secret confinement.
To prove the ingredients of Section 365 of the IPC, it is essential that there should be abduction, if no abduction is there; the offence under Section 365 of the IPC is not made out. To prove charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical restriction is not essential. The offence under Section 365 IPC can indeed be made out irrespective of whether the accused left the victim behind after the act, provided that the essential elements of kidnapping or abduction and the intent to wrongfully confine are established through evidence. It is crucial for the prosecution to demonstrate that the victim was abducted and that there was an intention to confine them secretly and wrongfully. In the present case, based on the statement of the witnesses, Shri Sharwan (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13573] (19 of 19) [CRLR-794/2019] Nayak, Banshi lal, Sunita, Madan lal @ Topi, it is observed that the accused abducted the deceased in a Bolero car and subsequently left the deceased behind after a period of time. At this stage, being the stage of charge framing, the court finds that the statement of the eyewitness cannot be disregarded, as it specifically details the act of abduction and the subsequent abandonment of the deceased. The court emphasizes that the fact of dropping back the deceased does not negate the commission of the offence under Section 365 IPC, as the essence of the offence lies in the initial act of abduction with the intent to secretly and wrongfully confine the victim. Therefore, it is the opinion of this court that the charges under Section 365 IPC, at this stage, cannot be quashed, as the allegations, based on the eyewitness statement, prima facie indicate the commission of the offence.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby partly allowed. The impugned order dated 01.12.2018 & 22.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 29/2015 whereby, the learned Judge ordered to frame charges against the petitioners to the extent of offence under Section 306 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. No interference is called for in the order framing charges for other offences.
The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 1-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:32:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)