Bombay High Court
Hemlata W/O Arun Raut vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Rajapeth ... on 27 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4976-DB
1 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 580 OF 2022
Smt. Hemlata w/o Arun Raut,
Aged about 49 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Atharva Apartment, Near
Swagat Hotel, Bypass Road, Camp
Amravati, C/o. Shri Pramod
Kalmegh, Saket Housing Society,
Vidyut Nagar, Walgaon Road,
Amravati. APPLICANT
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Thr. its Police Station Officer, Police
Station, Rajapeth, Amravati, Taluka
and District Amravati. NON-APPLICANT
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. Digvijay Singh,
Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, PP a/b Mr. N.H. Joshi, APP for the
Non-applicant/State.
Mr. U.P. Dable, Advocate to assist the prosecution.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 16th MARCH, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 27th MARCH, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt 1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
3. The present Application is preferred by the Applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the First Information Report ("FIR" for short) in connection with Crime No.740/2019 registered with Police Station Rajapeth, District Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Sessions Trial No.162/2021.
4. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Application are as under:
4(i). Deceased Arun Raut was the husband of the present Applicant. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.12.1996. After marriage the present Applicant resumed the cohabitation at the house of the Complainant, who is her father-in-law. As per the allegations, at the time of marriage the present Applicant was 3 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt graduate and also completed D-Pharm Degree. After marriage she has completed her further education as MA-B.Ed and was also serving as a Teacher.
4(ii). It is alleged that, though the Complainant and other family members were treating her with love and affection but she was abusing them as well as assaulting the deceased who was her husband. She was raising quarrel on trifle issue and left the matrimonial house and was residing at her parents house. She used to threatened them that she would commit suicide by mentioning their names and will implicate them in the crime. They were under expectation that some day her behaviour will change, and therefore, they have tolerated her misbehaviour. Thereafter she developed illicit relationship with one person who was residing at Nashik. On 15.06.2018, she left the house, therefore they have filed a missing report and subsequently they came to know that she went at Nashik to meet her paramour. Thereafter she again returned back. She was demanding money from his son. Therefore, on 26.11.2019 the son of the Complainant was under pressure and was not communicating with anybody and at about 01.30 to 02.00 p.m the Complainant 4 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt received message that the deceased has jumped in front of the train and succumbed to the death. On the basis of the said report Police have registered the crime against the present Applicant.
4(iii). After registration of the crime the Investigating Officer has visited the alleged spot of incident, drawn the inquest panchnama as well as spot panchnama. During inquest panchnama, suicide note from the person of the deceased was seized. During investigation the statement of the deceased which was recorded in another crime which was registered on the basis of the report lodged by the present Applicant was also collected and included in the investigation papers. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the present Applicant.
5. Heard Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant, who submitted that the incident was occurred on 26.11.2019, whereas the FIR was lodged on 02.12.2019. The marriage between the present Applicant and the deceased was a love marriage. He invited my attention towards the fact that, the present Applicant has lodged the report against the 5 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt deceased and other family members as she was subjected for the illtreatment by the Complainant and other family members, wherein she has specifically alleged as to the illtreatment and discord between her and her husband. The statement of the deceased was also recorded in the said crime. Thus, he submitted that, the relationship between the deceased and the present Applicant were not cordial, and therefore, this FIR came to be lodged afterthought only to implicate the present Applicant falsely. He further submitted that, the FIR was lodged by the present Applicant against the Complainant and other relatives on 11.07.2018 and thereafter after one year approximately the alleged incident has happened. Thus, there is no proximity as far as the abetment at the hands of the present Applicant is concerned. Thus, he submitted that, merely because the deceased has committed suicide and by taking disadvantage of the said fact as the relationship between the deceased and the present Applicant was not cordial, she is implicated.
6. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decisions of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2024) 3 SCC 573; Nipun Aneja & Ors., Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 6 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt SCC OnLine SC 4091 & Criminal Revision Application No. 74/2025 (Anup Niranjan Dodiya Vs. State of Maharashtra), decided on 17.07.2025.
7. Per contra, Mr. Chauhan, learned PP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that, it was the present Applicant who created certain circumstances before the deceased, and therefore, there was no alternative before the deceased but to commit suicide. The deceased felt that, there was no alternative or option but to take his life because of the behaviour of the present Applicant, which constitutes mens rea at the instance of the present Applicant. He invited my attention towards the various statements as well as the fact of filing of the suit by the Complainant against the deceased and the present Applicant. Thereafter some noting which is noted by the deceased as well as the present Applicant and submitted that the relationship was so strained which caused mental disturbance to the deceased. The statement of the sister of the deceased shows the state of mind of the deceased which resulted into the death of the deceased. Thus, he submitted that, the present Applicant was not behaving properly since her 7 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt marriage and was abusing and assaulting her husband, which constrained the Complainant who is the father-in-law to institute the suit against the present Applicant and her husband. The present Applicant developed illicit relations with some person at Nashik and one day she left the house of the Complainant, due to which the deceased has lodged missing report. Subsequently, she again joined the company of the deceased and Complainant but her behaviour was not changed and she used to threatened the deceased which resulted into the frustration of the deceased, and therefore, he felt that there is no alternative before him but to commit suicide and thereby he committed suicide.
8. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Application (APL) No. 1308/2023 (Santosh Haribhau Bharne & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.), decided on 19.12.2025; Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 460 ; Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 ; Mahendra K.C. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2022) SCC 129.
8 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
9. Mr. Dable, learned Counsel also supported the contention of the learned PP.
10. Before entering into the merits of the case it is necessary to see the consideration which requires to be considered for deciding the Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR registered under Section 306 of IPC (108 of BNS, 2023).
11. Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) of IPC defines abetment of suicide, which reads thus:
"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.
Classification of offence. - The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Court of Session."
12. Section 107 of IPC (Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment of a thing, which reads thus:
"107. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
9 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt 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.
Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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."
13. Section 108 of IPC reads thus:
"108. Abettor.- A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
Explanation 1. The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.
Explanation 2.- To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.
Illustrations 10 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.
Explanation 3.- It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. Illustrations
(a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.
(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, Instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z's death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z's death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same. Manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.
(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dweiling-house, B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A's instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment, provided for that offence.
(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z's possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing it to be A's property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft.
Explanation 4.- The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as offence.
11 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt Illustration A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence in consequence of B's instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment.
Explanation 5.- It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.
Illustration A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A's name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C' has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder."
14. It is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra K.C. (supra) relied by the learned PP, wherein it is held that the essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. 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 12 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
15. It is further held that, where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
13 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
16. Section 306 of IPC talks about abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
17. The said Sections penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 of IPC. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide.
18. A question arises as to when is a person said to have instigated another. The word "instigate" means to goad or urge forward provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act" which the person otherwise would not have done.
19. It is well settled that in order to attract the offence of abetment, there must be mens rea. Without knowledge or intention, there cannot be any abetment. The knowledge and 14 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt intention must relate to the act said to be abetted which in this case, is the act of committing suicide. Therefore, in order to constitute abetment, there must be direct incitement to do culpable act.
20. In the case of Kamlakar Vs. State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No.1485/of 2011, decided on 12.10.2023 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC and held as under:
"8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to act) which directly resulted in the person's suicide.
8.3. In Ramesh Kumar vs. Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383, this Court has analysed different meanings of "Instigation". The relevant para of the said Judgment is reproduced herein:
"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 left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the 15 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M.Mohan vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238, as under:
"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
367)] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment.
The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44. 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.
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."
8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 106 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. West bengal AIR 2010 SC 512, in the following paragraphs:
"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 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.
16 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt 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.
13. 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."
8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the instant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, there seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord between the deceased and the appellant and her subsequent death by burning herself. The appellant has not committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased."
21. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 , the Hon'ble Apex Court extensively dealt with concept of 'abetment' in the context of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. In that case, the allegation against the accused/appellant therein was that he had abetted the commission of suicide of his sister's husband one Chander Bhushan. The facts reveals that there were matrimonial disputes between sister of the appellant/accused and her husband and in connection with the said disputes, the appellant had allegedly threatened and abused Chander Bhushan. Chander Bhushan 17 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt committed suicide and the suicide was attributed by the prosecution to the quarrel that had taken place between the appellant and the said Chander Bhushan, a day prior. It was alleged that the appellant had used abusive language against said Chander Bhushan and had told him "to go and die". The appellant, who had been chargesheeted for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the proceedings against him, but his Petition was dismissed by the High Court. While allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court, inter alia, observed as follows:
"Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
22. Thus, a direct influence or an oblique impact with the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the mind of the deceased and which draw her to suicide will not be sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal 18 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt Code specific abetment as contemplated by Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code 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. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Chattisgarh, supra relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, in para No.20 has examined different meaning of 'instigation', which reads as, '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 left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been 19 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be 'instigation'.
24. Thus, combine reading of Sections 306, 107, and 108 of IPC, shows the requirement is a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide and in the absence of the same, the conviction cannot be sustained. There has to be a clear intention to commit the offence for being held liable under Section 306 of IPC.
25. Thus, after going through the catena of decisions, it reveals that test that the Court should adopt in these types of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. To attract the provisions what is to be shown is that the accused have actually instigated or aided in the victim's act of committing suicide. There must be direct or indirect incitement to the commission of suicide and the accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
20 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
26. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case even accepting the case as it is it reveals that the present Applicant and the deceased were husband and wife. There was matrimonial discord between them. From the recitals of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses it reveals that the deceased has filed a report against the present Applicant prior to the incident on 16.06.2018 contending that there is difference of opinion between them and when they were communicating with each other or discussing any issue the present Applicant shouts, abuses and threatens him. Sometime she shows readiness to stay alongwith him, subsequently otherwise threatens him to keep him in jail. She was also suspecting his character.
27. Similarly, the present Applicant has also filed a complaint against the deceased and other relatives contending that as she could not conceive after the marriage she was subjected for illtreatment and the deceased expressed that he dislikes her, and therefore, he wants to obtain the divorce from her. As she was not ready to give the divorce to him and it affects his mental condition. She further contended in the said 21 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt complaint that, since last five years i.e. from 16.06.2018 she subjected for the said harassment. Since last two months the deceased is not sharing the bed room with her and he has obtained another room on rent, where he goes for sleeping. He was also asking her not to raise any questions. Thus, it is apparent that, the deceased as well as the present Applicant both have lodged the report against each other alleging the illtreatment by them to each other. The statement of the sister of the deceased is also recorded. The said statement reflects that the deceased disclosed to her that the Applicant is raising suspicion on his character.
28. Thus, the nature of the dispute between the Applicant and the deceased was matrimonial in nature as there was discord between them due to the difference of opinion. After the deceased has committed suicide, the suicide note was found with him. The said suicide note nowhere reflects that he has committed suicide due to the abetment at the hands of the present Applicant. The said suicide note is reproduced for ready reference:
22 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt Thus, on perusal of the said suicide note, it reveals that the deceased has mentioned that he is undergoing some torture, and therefore, he is committing suicide and nobody is responsible for the said suicide.
29. Learned PP has pointed out from some notings which are maintained by the present Applicant and submitted that, the Applicant was desiring to have control over her husband, which is reflected from the said notes which affected the mental health of the deceased, and therefore, the deceased 23 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt has committed suicide. Similarly, some notes in the handwriting of the deceased was also seized during the investigation. The said notes maintained by the Applicant as well as by the deceased shows that, out of matrimonial dispute and difference of opinion both have disclosed about illtreatment or torture against each other.
30. As per the prosecution case, there was a constant harassment which was continued over a long period, and therefore, the deceased has committed suicide. The abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused, in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide a conviction cannot be sustained. What comes out essentially from the various decisions that if there is allegations of constant harassment, continued over a long period, to bring in the ingredients of Sections 306 read with Section 107 of IPC still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment or the extreme act on the part of the others of taking ones life. Merely because the victim was 24 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt continuously harassed and at one point he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his or her life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting the abetment. Mens rea cannot be ascertained only by the circumstance that the deceased has committed suicide as nobody knows what goes on in the mind of the victim. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option but to take his life because of what another person did or said which cannot lead to a finding mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person.
31. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of alleged perpetrator from the conscious acts or words and the attending circumstances which in all probability would lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he or she intended by his or her action to at least possibly drive the victim to commit suicide is the sure test. Whether there was a thought of goading the victim to commit suicide occurred in the minds of the applicant or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case is the true test of mens rea would depend upon the facts of each case. Unless there is a conscious deliberate intention to drive the 25 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt another person to take the life, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306 of IPC.
32. In the case in hand, due to matrimonial dispute between the Applicant and the deceased both have lodged the complaint against each other and both have suspected the character of each other. As far as the summary of the charge-sheet and statements recorded even if taken into consideration there is no single incident apparent from which it can be said that, the Applicant has created such circumstances before the deceased due to which the deceased has no alternative but to commit suicide, and therefore, the deceased has committed suicide. On the contrary, the investigation papers which are collected during the investigation shows that the deceased as well as the present Applicant both have alleged against each other as to the torture at the hands of each other. They both have suspected the character of each other and they both have filed complaints against each other. However, there is no proof of direct or indirect acts of the present Applicant which would constitute incitement which drive the deceased to commit suicide. Mere the allegation of harassment without 26 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide then only the offence under Section 306 of IPC said to be established. The aspect regarding the ingredients of the offence to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decision.
33. Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant as well as Mr. Chouhan, learned PP both have placed reliance on Nipun Aneja & Ors., (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. It is further held that, the scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was 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 the Supreme Court is clear that in 27 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt 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."
18. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC in detail, observed as under:-
"7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC ."
19. This Court in Ude singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under:-
"16. 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 could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused 28 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case."
34. Thus, for the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated repeatedly in various decisions if the person who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 of IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide.
29 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
35. Thus, the test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the Courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full- fledged trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that such understanding on the part of the Courts is wrong.
36. In the light of the well settled principles and by applying the same to the facts of the present case and even accepting the case as it is it reveals that there was matrimonial dispute between the deceased and accused. Both have made an allegation against each other as to the harassment. However, the investigation papers nowhere shows that the present Applicant has created such circumstances before the deceased that the deceased was not having any alternative but to commit suicide. On the contrary, it shows that both have made allegation against each other regarding illicit relations with somebody else, and therefore, the same would not be sufficient to gather that the deceased has committed suicide.
30 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt
37. The matrimonial discord is common in domestic life. Suicide cannot be attributed to any of the spouse, merely because there is a matrimonial dispute. It cannot be held that due to the abetment the deceased has committed suicide. As far as the present case is concerned, at the most it can be said that, the Applicant may be the reason for the frustration of the deceased but such type of the discord and differences which are common in domestic life in the society and until and unless some guilty intentions are there it is ordinarily not possible to show that the present Applicant is responsible for the death of the deceased. The suicide note also has not attributed any such mens rea to the present Applicant. Even if any words uttered by any of the spouse during the fit of anger also would not sufficient to constitute the abetment at the hands of the accused. Here in the present case, due to the matrimonial dispute the deceased has committed suicide. No other reason come forward to show that the deceased was not having any other option, and therefore, he has committed suicide. In view of that, the Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
31 APL.580-2022..JUDGMENT.odt ORDER i. Criminal Application is allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 740/2019 registered with Police Station Rajapeth, District Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Sessions Trial No.162/2021, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present Applicant.
38. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) S.D.Bhimte Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 30/03/2026 10:55:10