Madhya Pradesh High Court
Simant Bakshi vs The State Of M.P. on 21 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 441 of 2004
SIMANT BAKSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
___________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri Harish Chandra Tripathi - Advocate for appellant- Simant Bakshi.
Shri Anendra Singh Parihar - Advocate for appellant - Anil Pandey.
Shri Amit Rawal - GA for the State / respondent.
_____________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/04/2004 passed in S.T. no. 194 of 1996 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, [Fast Track], Jhabua, District-Jhabua, whereby appellants Simant Bakshi and Anil Pandey were convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, with default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the appellants / accused were also convicted for offence punishable under section 506-B of the IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, with default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2 As per the accusation, Shantilal S/o Lalu Banjara consumed some Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833 poisonous substance at his home in Village - Gothaniya. Shantilal was taken for treatment to Primary Health Centre, Patlawad. He succumbed to death during treatment on 26/11/1994. The Police Station, Petlawad registered unnatural death intimation no. 31 of 1994 on report of Lalusingh Banjara. The dead body of Shantilal was forwarded for postmortem examination. The Medical Officer opined that Shantilal may be died due to suicide within 24 hours of the examination. The cause of death will be determined after medical examination of viscera. The viscera and stomach organ were preserved for chemical examination. The Scientific Officer of State Forensic Laboratory, vide report dated 31/07/1995 opined that the traces of organophosphorus insecticides was found in viscera of Shantilal. Bhavsingh, brother of Shantilal submitted hand-written notes and complaints of Shantilal alleging non-payment of wages and manhandling, harassment and threatening by Simant Bakshi and Anil Pandey. The documents were seized and forwarded to handwriting expert along with natural handwriting of Shantilal. The relatives of Shantilal alleged that Shantilal was working at the hotel of Simant Bakshi at Bus-Stand, Dhar. Simant Bakshi did not pay him wages. When Simant demanded his wages, Simant and Anil manhandled him and threatened him. Shantilal had complained to the SDM and the Labour Officer regarding non-payment of wages. Shantilal returned his home at Village Gothaniya. He was distressed and frightened due to harassment and threatening of Simant Bakshi and Anil Pandey, therefore, he committed suicide. On such allegations, the Police Station, Petlawad registered FIR for offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC. The final report was submitted on completion of investigation.
3. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 21/03/1996. The Sessions Judge, Jhabua and framed charge for offence punishable under section Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833 306 and 506-B of the IPC against Simant Bakshi and Anil Pandey. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, on completion of trial, convicted the appellants for offence punishable under section 306 and 506-B of the IPC vide impugned judgment dated 20/04/2004 and sentenced them as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment.
4. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is assailed in present appeal on following grounds :
i) The trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the law and the evidence on record.
ii) The Labour Inspector [PW-11] deposed that he had issued notice to the deceased to collect the wages from the appellants, but he did not appear. Learned trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of PW-11.
iii) The trial Court did not consider the evidence of mother of deceased [PW-4], she did not allege misdeed against the appellants.
On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence be set aside and the appellants be acquitted.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo, submitted that the necessary ingredients to constitute offence of abetment and suicide are not made out against the accused. Mere allegation of harassment is not sufficient to constitute instigation to commit suicide, therefore, the appellants deserve to be acquitted.
6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the State contended that the appellants have harassed and threatened the young boy, who was working in part-time job at hotel of Simant Bakshi. Shantilal had committed suicide due to harassment, threatening and beating by the accused. The appeal is meritless.
7. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 4NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833
8. The points for determination, in the present appeal, are as under:
(i) Whether Shantilal had committed suicide?
(ii) Whether Simant Bakshi and Anil Pandey had subjected Shantilal to harassment and criminal intimidation?
(iii) Whether appellant/accused Simant Bakshi and Anil Pandey abetted suicide of Shantilal?
(iv) Whether learned Additional Sessions Judge committed error in convicting the accused Simant Bakshi and Anil Pandey for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 506-B of IPC?
Point for determination no (i) - reasons for conclusion.
9. Jasodabai [PW-4] deposed that her son Shantilal was studying at Dhar. He was also working at a hotel. Shantilal returned home at Village, Gothaniya. He did not inform the reason for returning home. Her elder son Bhavsingh went to Dhar to enquire the reason for return of Shantilal. Next morning, Shantilal consumed insecticide. Shantilal was taken to Petlawad in a tractor. He died at Petlawad. Bhavsingh [PW-1], Nathusingh [PW-3] and Shyam [PW-5] also deposed similar facts.
10. Dr. Gopal Singh [PW-12] stated that Shantilal was admitted to Primary Health Centre, Petlawad on 26/11/1994 with the history of consuming poison. Shantilal was unconscious, his general condition was poor. He immediately informed the Police Station, Petlawad vide communication Ex-P/25 and Ex-P/26. Head Constable Jivraj Sharma [PW-8] stated that he had received intimation Ex.-P/9 regarding death of Shantilal and forwarded the same for inquest to ASI Hukumsingh Sisodiya. ASI Hukumsingh [PW-9] deposed that he conducted Panchanama Ex-P/18 of the dead body of Shantilal on 27/11/1994 in presence of panch witnesses and forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination to P.H.C. Petlawad.
11. Dr. S.C. Sharma [PW-2] conducted postmortem examination and opined that death may be suicidal within 24 hours of the examination. The internal organs of Shantilal were preserved for chemical Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 5 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833 examination. The Forensic Science Laboratory, vide report dated 31/07/1995, Ex.-P/34, reported that traces of Organophosphorus insecticides were found in the viscera of deceased Shantilal. The aforestated evidence remains unrebutted. The trial Court committed no error in concluding that Shantilal had committed suicide.
Points for determination no (ii) and (iii) - reasons for conclusion
12. Learned trial Court considered the evidence of Bhavsingh [PW-1], Nathusingh [PW-3], Shyam [PW-4] and Kamal Kishor [PW-6], the hand written notes [Ex.-P/3 to Ex.-P/6] , the report of hand-written expert and the proceedings with regard to non-payment of wages Ex.-P/21 to Ex.- P/24 to conclude that the accused / appellants threatened deceased Shantilal and instigated him to commit suicide. Shantilal committed suicide due to harassment and abetment of the accused/ appellants.
13. Although the trial Court vaguely mentioned the evidence on record, but appreciation of ocular and documentary evidence is grossly inadequate. Whether the alleged harassment was sufficient to constitute abetment to suicide, is not discussed in the impugned judgment.
14. Section 306 of IPC provides that punishment for abetment to commit suicide. Section 107 of IPC defines abetment 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.
The explanation to Section 107 IPC which defines instigation provides, thus:-
Explanation 1.-- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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."Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 6
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833
15. In the case of in the case of Dinesh V. State of M.P. (2016) 3 MPWN 103, while dealing with similar facts, it has been held as follows:
"8 - If the deceased was being unduly pressurized to repay the loan and he felt harassed then he ought to have taken recourse to law by lodging a report against the petitioner and other persons that they are threatening to kill him for non-payment of loan. The deceased instead of pursuing a legal remedy had committed suicide, obviously to put the petitioner and his other tormentors into hot waters. Be that as it may, a case for abetment to commit suicide is not at all made out against the petitioner"
16. In the case of Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2024) 1 SCC 417 the Apex Court held as under :-
10. In the facts of the case, Secondly and Thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the petitioner 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.
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"
17. In the case of M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315, the Supreme Court held as follows :-
6. As pointed out by the High Court, of course PW 1 to PW 5 have spoken about the borrowing of money by the deceased and also the execution of the promissory note. The sheet anchor of the prosecution's case to prove the guilt of the accused is the suicide note (MO 1) written by the deceased. On perusal of suicide note (MO 1), it is seen that in MO 1 the deceased has written about the financial difficulties faced by him and his inability to meet the financial crunch and also his inability to repay the same. The tenor of MO 1 only shows that the deceased was subjected to pressure for payment and was facing the financial difficulty. In MO 1 (letter) there is nothing to indicate that there was instigation by the appellant-accused which had driven the deceased to take Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 7 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833 the extreme step of committing suicide.
7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC 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 the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
8. In our considered view, in the case at hand, MO 1 letter and the oral evidence of PW 1 to PW 5, would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellant deceased. Having advanced the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC. From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not established and the conviction of the appellant accused under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained."
18. In case of Gangula Mohan Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750, the Supreme Court opined as under :-
"17. 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide"
19. This Court in Hukum Singh Yadav V/s. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2011) MP 1089 relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 and held as under :-
"10. Considering these legal aspect, this is to be observed that whether applicants have had same knowledge that deceased would commit suicide. As per the prosecution case when deceased was going with his father. Applicants restrained deceased and his father Jagdish and abused and threatened both of them, hence, it cannot be assumed that applicants had knowledge that one of them particularly deceased will commit suicide. When act of abusing and threatening was alleged to be done with deceased as well as his father, so it cannot be said that applicants had knowledge or intention that deceased should commit suicide. There is no evidence that they provoked, incited or Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833 encouraged deceased to commit suicide. It is also not alleged that when applicants threatened to kill the deceased and his father Jagdish they were armed with some weapons. So it cannot be presumed that deceased was so frightened that he had no option left except committing suicide and was compelled to do so."
20. The Supreme Court in matter of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 held that 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 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. 16.1. 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 by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons 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, on the other hand, 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 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. 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 and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or 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. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 9 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833 note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
21. The principle flowing from these judgments is that Abatement, as defined under section 107 of the IPC, requires deliberate mental process involving instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid that actively compels the deceased to commit suicide. The overt act of accused must be of such a nature that the victim had no option but to commit suicide. Mere causation, such as emotional distress, harassment or any underline grievance without proof of "positive act or conduct" by the accused and the mensrea to compel suicide, does not fall within the purview of abetment to commit suicide. Mere harassment or emotional volatility, even if contributing factors for mental state of deceased, in absence of deliberate inducement, does not constitute abetment without clear nexus of mensrea and direct casual link. The evidence on record is examined in the light of aforestated dictum of law.
22. Bhavsingh, elder brother of deceased, deposed that Shantilal went to Dhar for study. He used to reside with his maternal uncle Sukhram and worked at the hotel of Bakshi Seth (appellant Simant Bakshi). Shantilal came to parental home in Village Gothaniya, two days prior to his death. Shantilal informed that Bakshi Seth and his servant Anil had manhandled him over payment of outstanding wages. They were threatening to kill him, therefore, he does not wish to go back to Dhar. Bhavsingh further deposed that on the instruction of his father, he went to Dhar to get the baggage of Shantilal. He and his maternal cousin Jagdish went to the hotel of Bakshi Seth. The hotel was closed therefore, they returned home. He came to know that Shantilal had consumed some poisonous medicine and died. One hand hand-written note was found in the pocket of Shantilal. He had given the hand-written note Ex.-P/1 to the Police, which was seized by the Police vide seizure memo Ex.-P/2. He had given other Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833 hand-written notes [ Ex.-P/3 to Ex.-P/6] and handbook [Ex-P/8 and Ex.- P/9] of Shantilal, which were also seized by the Police vide Ex-P/7 and Ex.-P/10 respectively. Nathusingh [PW-3] and Shyam [PW-5], cousins of Shantilal, also deposed on similar line.
23. Sukhram [PW-7], maternal uncle of Shantilal, stated that Shantilal had worked at Bakshi Bhojnalaya for 4-5 months. Thereafter, he left the job and was working at a restaurant. Shantilal informed that when he demanded outstanding wages from Bakshi Bhojnalaya, he was beaten by Bakshi Seth. He consoled Shantilal that he will talk to Bakshi Seth after the Municipal Election. Shantilal returned to Village Gothaniya. 2-3 days thereafter, he was informed that Shantilal committed suicide.
24. The evidence of Bhavsingh [PW-1], Nathusingh [PW-3], Shyam [PW-5] and Sukhram [PW-7] show that there was some dispute regarding outstanding wages between deceased Shantilal and owner of Bakshi Bhojnalaya, accused Simant Bakshi. Shantilal complained that Bakshi had beaten him, when he asked for payment of wages. Shyam [PW-5] and Sukhram [PW-7] have specifically stated that Shantilal had worked with Bakshi Bhojnalaya for 4-5 months. Thereafter, he left Bakshi Bhojnalaya and started working at a restaurant. It goes to show that in close proximity of death, Shantilal was not working with Bakshi Bhojnalaya. The maternal cousin Shyam [PW-5] and the maternal uncle Sukhram [PW-7] had promised to settle the dispute with Bakshi after Municipal elections. Thereafter, Shantilal returned to his parental home at Village Gothaniya.
25. The evidence of Bhavsingh [PW-1] and Jasodabai [PW-4] show that Shantilal did not consume insecticide immediately on return to his parental home rather, he had consumed the insecticide two days after his return from Dhar.
26. The hand-written notes Ex.-P/4 and Ex.-P/5 show that Shantilal Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833 was aggrieved due to ill-treatment and beating by Simant Bakshi and his servant Anil Pandey. He was threatened by them. The letter Ex.-P/5 bears date as 16/11/1994, whereas the letter Ex.-P/3 bears date as 20/11/1994, whereas Shantilal consumed poisonous substance in the morning of 26/11/1994. Thus, the alleged incident of beating and threatening was atleast 10 days prior to his death.
27. Kamal Kishor [PW-6] submits that Shantilal had submitted an application on 29/11/1994 against Bakshi Seth and Anil. The Court of S.D.M. Dhar had registered the case no. 407 of 1994 under sections 107 / 116 of the Cr.P.C and forwarded the matter to the S.H.O. Raipuriya vide communication Ex.-P/13. Accordingly, Simant Bakshi and Anil were bounded to keep peace. They submitted personal bond Ex.-P/15 and Ex.- P/16. Kamal Kishor [PW-6] has proved the proceedings of S.D.M. Dhar Ex.-P/21. There is manifest inconsistency and improbability. As per the case of prosecution proved by death intimation and postmortem report, Shantilal had died on 26/11/1994, so it was not possible that Shantilal had personally filed application Ex.-P/14 before the Court of S.D.M. Dhar on 29/11/1994. The evidence of Kamal Kishor [PW-6] and the proceedings of S.D.M. Dhar are utterly untrustworthy. These proceedings were initiated and conducted obviously after the demise of Shantilal. Learned trial Court did not consider this important aspect of the matter and committed gross error in relying on it.
28. The Labour Inspector Mahesh Chandra Bansal [PW-11] informed that at the direction of Labour Officer, he issued show-cause notice Ex.- P/22 to Simant Bakshi about non-payment of wages to Shantilal S/o Laluji. Notice Ex-P/22 dated 10/11/1994 was issued by the office of Labour Officer under the Minimum Wages Act directing Simant Bakshi to pay the outstanding wages of Rs. 1193/- to Shantilal within seven days. Simant Bakshi submitted reply dated 16/11/1994 Ex.-P/23 stating that he Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833 had contacted Shantilal but he is refusing to receive the payment. He is ready to pay the outstanding wages. Mahesh Chandra Bansal [PW-11] further stated that he had recorded the statement of Shantilal Ex.-P/24. Shantilal did not allege beating or ill-treatment to the Minimum Wages Officer in his statement dated 02/11/1994. It goes to show that Shantilal not only applied to the S.D.M. Dhar, but also made a complaint to the appropriate Authority with regard to non-payment of minimum wages in first week of November, 1994. The proceeding for recovery of wages was initiated and Simant Bakshi was given notice.
29. Apparently, there is no material on record to substantiate the alleged manhandling or beating by Simant Bakshi or his servant Anil Pandey. There is no witness of the incident. Shantilal did not report this incident to local Police or other authorities. The evidence of Shyam (cousin) [PW-5] and Sukhram (maternal uncle) [PW-7] reveal that although Shantilal has mentioned about ill-treatment by Simant Bakshi and Anil Pandey, they consoled him by saying that they will talk to Simant Bakshi after Municipal election. Thus, the incident was not severe or urgent in nature, otherwise, close relatives of Shantilal would have responded and guided Shantilal to report the incident. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the incident of demand of wages and the alleged ill- treatment by Simant Bakshi and Anil Pandey were stale and not in proximity of unfortunate death of Shantilal. There is no evidence to suggest that appellants Simant Bakshi or Anil Pandey had communicated with Shantilal immediately or soon before his death. Learned trial Court did not consider these important aspects of the matter reflected from the evidence on record.
30. As per the case of prosecution, appellants instigated Shantilal to commit suicide. Instigation means "to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do act". There is no positive or direct allegation that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833 appellants intended death of Shantilal or they had goaded, urged, provoked, incited or encouraged Shantilal to commit suicide. The deceased had alleged ill-treatment and threatening by the accused in hand written note [Ex.-P/4, Ex.-P/5 and Ex.-/6], but he did not allege that they have asked, provoked, goaded, instigated him to commit suicide. The intention on the part of the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide cannot be inferred as at the most, they were interested in avoiding payment of wages to the deceased, who had left the job at their hotel and was working elsewhere. The alleged conduct does not fall within the ambit of "incitement" or "instigation". If the deceased was aggrieved by the ill-treatment and threatening of the accused, he could have taken legal action against them and lodged complaint to Police after reaching parental home. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such an action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. In view of the above discussions, it is apparent that the prosecution had failed to prove the nexus or live link between suicide of Shantilal and harassment or ill-treatment of accused Simant Bakshi and Anil Pandey regarding non-payment of outstanding wages. [Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2002 SC 199 ; Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2020 (SCC Online) SC 964 relied].
Point for determination no (iv) - reasons for conclusion
31. The evidence on record does not show that Shantilal felt alarm and was intimidated by conduct of the accused, rather he was prosecuting legal remedies against them for non-payment of wages. Thus, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15 14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1833 prosecution had failed to prove that appellant/accused Simant Bakshi and Anil Pandey had threatened and caused criminal intimidation to Shantilal. Learned trial Court has committed grave error in appreciating the evidence on record and in convicting the appellants for abetting suicide of Shantilal.
32. The trial Court had committed error in convicting the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 506-B of the IPC. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/04/2004 passed in S.T. no. 194 of 1996 is set aside. The personal bond and surety bond of appellants stand discharged. The appellants shall be entitled to remittance of fine amount, if deposited. The order of trial Court regarding disposal of property is affirmed.
33. A copy of this judgment alongwith record be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary action.
C. C. as per rules (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE amol Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 21-01-2026 19:42:15