Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hanuman And Ors vs State on 14 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:46983]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 478/2013
1. Hanuman S/o Shri Manphool Giri Gusain, R/o Aradki, at
present residing at Ward No.6, Nohar, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan)
Convict No.2
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Malchand Agrawal, R/o Ward No.13,
Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
Convict No.4
----Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 550/2013
Gaurav @ Goru S/o Sh. Jagishrai, R/o Roopana, Teh. & Distt.
Muktsar, Punjab at present tenant of Sh. Kamal Sharma, Sector
No.9, Behind Government Hospital, Hanumangarh Town.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot
Ms. Vandana Prajapati
Mr. Pankaj Sharma
Mr. Bhawani Singh
Mr. Hanuman
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. H.M. Saraswat for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment Reportable Arguments concluded on : 24/09/2025 Reserved on: 24/09/2025 Pronounced on : 14/11/2025 (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (2 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
1. By way of filing the instant criminal appeals, the accused- appellants have questioned the validity of the judgment dated 04.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Session Case No.10/2012 (06/2012) (32/11) titled "State v. Gourav @ Goru & Ors.". whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.
Factual Matrix:-
2. The brief facts of the case are that based upon handwritten information dated 21.03.2011 (Exh.P1), given by Shankar Lal (PW-1) to the SHO Police Station Nohar, regarding death of Manoj Kumar, son of his younger brother Deendyal, at the shop belonging to Manoj Kumar, by way of committing suicide by hanging himself; inquest proceedings were initiated by the police officials. Subsequently, the police inspected the site and undertook the photographs of the deceased as well as site vide Exh.P3 and Panchnama was prepared vide Exh.P2. The police during the inquest proceeding No.11/11 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., on 21.03.2011 prepared a memo of recovery (Exh.P4) of the rope used for hanging while pointing out the details with regard to the area where the incident happened and prepared a crime detail form on 21.03.2011 itself. On the next date, the police again inspected the site and by way of Exh.P5 prepared on 22.03.2011 at around 01:00 PM recovered a suicide note allegedly written by deceased Manoj Kumar, which was found in a drawer of the (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (3 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] counter of shop belonging to the deceased. It has been stated under the memo that the suicide note was running in three pages, wherein Serial Nos.1, 2 & 3 were marked and on the last page suicide note was signed by the deceased and the date 21.03.2011 was mentioned. It has been alleged that the witnesses Shankar Lal and Prayagchand fortified the fact that the signature and the handwriting was of deceased Manoj Kumar.
3. Post recovery of the suicide note, a written complaint came to be filed by Sumitra, wife of deceased, Manoj Kumar on 22.03.2011, which was handed over to the police officials at her house at 04:15 PM. In the report, Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) stated that a day before the deceased committed suicide, he appeared stressed and informed her that he previously engaged in betting on cricket matches and that although he had discontinued such activities, he was still being continuously harassed by local bookies, namely Hanuman Gosai and Ashok Kandoi. She asserted that on 20.03.2011 the deceased further informed her that tomorrow a person named Goru would be coming to forcefully take money from the deceased, whereas the deceased was not having any outstanding to be paid to them. She further stated that the deceased informed her that earlier also, these people had collected 7 to 8 lakh rupees from the deceased and tomorrow again they were coming to take the money, whereas the deceased was not in a position to make the payment. She further stated that she did not think it appropriate to inform her father-in-law and family members and on the next morning i.e. 21.03.2011, her husband after taking bath went to the shop and at around 10:30 AM, he committed suicide by hanging himself in the shop in (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (4 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] question. She thus asserted that the above-mentioned persons had blackmailed her husband and threatened with dire consequences and thus abetted her husband for committing suicide. She further stated that prior to committing suicide, her husband had written a suicide note, which was recovered by the police and, therefore, she submitted the report in question for initiating appropriate proceedings against the persons involved.
4. Based upon the typed report, an FIR No.143/2011 dated 22.03.2011 (Exh.26) was registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, on 01.04.2011 the police officials got the computer and CPU seized from the shop of the deceased and got examined through Juneja Enterprises, however, no details with regard to any involvement in betting or identical business was found from the computer in question. As per the post-mortem report (Exh.P10), the death was specified as asphyxia caused by suicidal hanging. The call details report (Exh.P16) of the phone of deceased was also gathered and the suicide note was sent to the FSL for verification of handwriting as well as signature vide letter dated 13.04.2011 (Exh.P23). The bank account opening form, cheques etc. were sent for FSL for verification of the signatures of deceased Manoj Kumar. Post that, the accused Gourav, Hanuman Gosai, Ashok and Shashikant Bagri were arrested on 30.03.2011, however, neither any recovery was made from them nor any link of connecting them as per the call details was found. The FSL report was received on 27.09.2011 (Exh.P41), wherein it was fortified that the signature on the suicide note belonged to Manoj Kumar only. However, as far as the handwriting is concerned, no (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (5 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] opinion was given though proved handwriting samples of deceased Manoj Kumar were requested to be provided for identification.
Post that, no document was provided and thus the FSL report remained inconclusive as far as the handwriting of deceased Manoj Kumar upon the suicide note is concerned. The police filed the charge-sheet and after framing of charges, the trial commenced. The following witnesses were examined by the learned trial Court:-
PW-1 Shankar Lal (Uncle of The person who gave the report deceased) based upon which inquest proceedings were initiated.
Further, he fortified the
signature of deceased upon the
suicide note and was also
witness of recovery of suicide
note.
PW-2, Sumitra (wife of Complainant and fortified the
deceased) handwriting of deceased upon
the suicide note and the fact of
deceased informing with regard
to demand being made by the
accused from the deceased.
PW-3, Manoj (relative of Alleges information by the
deceased) deceased with regard to
demand being raised by the
accused.
PW-4, Prayagchand (uncle of Fortified the signature and deceased) handwriting of deceased upon the suicide note and recovery witness of the suicide note and other exhibits.
PW-5, Iliyas (friend of Alleges information by the
deceased) deceased with regard to
demand made by accused.
PW-6, Dr. Jitender Soni (Medical Affirmed the post-mortem
Jurist) report and stated the cause of
death to be asphyxia by suicidal
hanging.
PW-7, Mahender Kumar Fortified the printing of the E-
(Constable, Police Station mails Exhibits-P11 to P19.
Nohar)
PW-8, Kishan Kumar, (friend of Forfitied information by
deceased) deceased with regard to
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46983] (6 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
demand of money by the
accused.
PW-9, Sitaram (Constable at The person who took the
P.S. Nohar) documents for FSL.
PW-10, Ram Singh (Constable) The person who took the
documents for FSL.
PW-11, Anil Kumar (the Conducted search at the site
Investigating Officer) and the entire investigation.
5. The trial Court, thereafter, recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and post that, the learned trial Court by way of impugned judgment dated 04.06.2013 convicted the accused-appellants for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC with 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine in question.
6. Being aggrieved against the same, the present appeals were filed, which were admitted and this Court vide orders dated 04.07.2013 and 10.07.2013 respectively, had suspended the sentences of the appellants.
Arguments by learned counsel for the appellants:-
7. Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot, learned counsel for the appellants Hanuman and Ashok Kumar, raised a doubt with regard to the recovery of suicide note and emphasised that the suicide note was planted by the police officials. He submitted that based upon the information (Exh.P1), inquest proceedings were initiated and on 21.03.2011 itself, the police had prepared the panchnama, took photographs of the site vide Exh.P3 and even recovered the rope vide Exh.P4, however, there is no mention of recovery of any suicide note on that date. He argued that there was no occasion for the police to go back at the site on the next date when entire memos were prepared on 21.03.2011 itself, however, without any reason the police has been shown to reach the site again on 22.03.2011 and, thereafter, the alleged suicide note has been (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (7 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] recovered vide Exh.P5. He further argued that the Investigating Officer has failed to justify his visit to the site in question on 22.03.2011. He further submitted that post alleged recovery of the suicide note on 22.03.2011 at 01:00 PM, the same was taken to the house of complainant Sumitra (wife of deceased) and, thereafter, she got a typed report prepared from a counsel at Jodhpur, which she herself admitted in her cross-examination, and thereby, FIR in question was filed in evening. He further argued that the entire series of events fortified the fact that suicide note was planted just with a view to implicate the present appellants. It was argued that the time of recovery of suicide note and lodging of the FIR within three hours thereafter and prior to that, the wife of deceased taking assistance from a counsel at Jodhpur for lodging of the FIR itself fortified the fact that the entire recovery and the lodging of FIR was scripted with a view to implicate the present appellants only for the reason that the deceased had to make payment of certain amount to them.
8. He further argued that the writing on the suicide note was not at all proved as far as witnesses Shankar Lal (PW-1) and Prayagchand (PW-4) are concerned. They have admitted the fact of both staying away from the house of the deceased and having separated almost 15-20 years ago. He argued that the handwriting was not at all proved in the FSL report also and further there was no connecting link to connect the accused-
appellants as even the details with regard to the call, being made to them by deceased or being received by the deceased from their mobile were not found in the call details record (Exh.16) also.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (8 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
9. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that neither any recovery of any accounts etc. has been made from the possession of the accused-appellants nor there is anything to implicate them except for an averment made by Smt. Sumitra (PW-2), which itself was planned by the prosecution only for the purpose of falsely implicating the accused-appellants. He further argued that as far as the recovery of suicide note is concerned, both the recovery witnesses Shankar Lal (PW-1) and Prayagchand (PW-4) have also not stated anything as to why the police came upon the site and had admitted that the names of the accused were disclosed by the police officials. He argued that the Prayagchand had admitted that all the signatures on the memos were prepared by the police at the police station, which itself fortified the fact that the appellants have been falsely implicated and the memos have been prepared as an afterthought at the police station itself. He further argued that the statements of Iliyas, Manoj and Kishan Kumar do not inspire any confidence as they have not specified as to why the deceased would have informed them about the alleged amount due to be paid by him to the appellants. Rather their ignorance for the amount due and what was the total due itself fortified the fact that they have also been implanted by the police officials. He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeals and acquitting the appellants.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Sharma appearing for appellant Gourav @ Goru, while reiterating the arguments raised by Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot, emphasised that, even if, the entire story of the prosecution is treated to be proved, then too, the necessary ingredients of offence punishable under Section (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (9 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] 306 IPC are missing in the case in hand and no conviction order for the offence in question could have been passed by the learned trial Court based upon the evidence available on record. He has referred to the provisions of Sections 107 and 306 IPC while emphasizing that there has to be an instigation on the part of the accused or engagement in doing a conspiracy and an act or illegal omission taking place pursuant to that conspiracy or there should be intentional aid of doing of an act or illegal omission for the purpose of abetting a thing. In the present case, none of the ingredients were available on record. He further argued that there was no abetment proved in the case in hand and simply because money due was demanded from the deceased, this cannot be treated as an abetment. To fortify his argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh", (2025) 4 SCC 801 and "Rajesh v. State of Haryana", (2020) 15 SCC 359 as well as judgment dated 01.05.2019 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 532/2018 "Raju v. State of Rajasthan" and judgment dated 28.08.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1508/2023 "Haribhajan Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.".
11. Learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out various words used in the suicide note at page nos. 1 and 2, specifically while pointing out difference in the font, as also, referring to the suicide note, more particularly at the end of page no.1 and the starting of page no.2, showing that there is no co-relation between the lines and page no.2 being added later on, wherein the names of the appellants specified were added by the (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (10 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] prosecution only with a view to implicate the present appellants. He argued that a perusal of the suicide note, through a naked eye, itself will reveal that the font of page nos.1 and 3 are common and font of page no.2 is entirely different. He argued that in spite of the FSL report specifying submitting of additional admitted documents to fortify the handwriting, non-supply of the same demolishes the entire case of the prosecution. He further pointed out to the statement of Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) while emphasizing that initially inquest proceedings were initiated and she did not even whisper anything for a period of more than 24 hours with regard to the suicide being attributed to the demand made by the appellants from the deceased for repayment of money. It was only post alleged suicide note has been shown to be recovered (that too, under suspicious circumstances) that the FIR has been lodged and, that too, by way of seeking legal assistance. He further referred to the statement of Anil Kumar (PW-11), the Investigating Officer wherein he admitted that the site in question was locked after search and the keys were with the family members of the deceased and it was them only, who opened it on the next day. He thus argued that the question of implanting of the suicide note either by the police or the family members cannot be ruled out, as also, not a single family member has supported the version of Investigation Officer nor the I.O. has been able to point out as to who opened the lock of the place, where the suicide note was found. He, therefore, emphasized that there is no material available on record to implicate the present appellants and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (11 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appeals filed by the appellants deserve to be allowed.
Arguments by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant:-
12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned and argued that the learned Trial Court has considered the entire evidence in its correct perspective and, thereafter, passed the conviction order. The learned Public Prosecutor, referring to the suicide note, argued that the suicide note itself was very specific, wherein all the three appellants have been named, while also specifically emphasizing that the instigation and the corresponding suicide by the deceased for the same reason is proved by the suicide note itself.
13. The learned counsel for the complainant while supporting the argument made by the learned Public Prosecutor emphasized that the FSL report proved the signature of the deceased upon the suicide note thus, the veracity of the suicide is not questionable. He further emphasized that handwriting of the deceased upon the suicide note was proved by Shankar Lal (PW-1), Prayagchand (PW-4), Kishan Kumar (PW-8) and Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) and no question regarding the knowledge of the handwriting was asked during the cross-examination of the above witnesses. He, therefore, argued that the objection with regard to the veracity of suicide note cannot be raised by the appellants. He further argued that apart from the suicide note; the demand, harassment and instigation on the part of the appellants, soon before death was proved by the statements of Iliyas (PW-5), Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) and Kishan Kumar (PW-8). He further argued that as far as (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (12 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] recovery of the suicide note is concerned, the I.O. specified that on 21.03.2011, the entire premise could not be searched by him and only a portion where suicide was committed, was searched by him. He further argued that the the suicide note has been found in the presence of recovery witnesses i.e. Shankar Lal (PW-1) and Prayagchand (PW-4) by the Investigating Officer. He thus argued that the recovery of suicide note and the contents of the suicide note itself were sufficient to convict the appellants and the Trial Court has dealt with each and every argument raised in the cases also, while convicting the appellants. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
Reasoning and Analysis:-
14. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and perused the record. For sake of convenience, the issue argued and being considered are segregated as under:-
(i) Recovery of Suicide Note:-
15. First and foremost, as far as the argument with regard to the inquest proceedings and recovery of the suicide note are concerned, a bare perusal of Exh.P1 written by Shankar Lal (PW-
1) will reveal that initially an information with regard to suicidal death of deceased Manoj Kumar was received by the SHO, Police Station, Nohar on 21.03.2011, upon which, inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated on the same day at around 11:00 AM. Post that memo of panchnama as well as memo of recovery of rope, used for hanging and photographs of dead body and site were prepared on same day i.e. 21.03.2011.
Thereafter, on the next day upon fresh inspection, suicide note (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (13 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] was recovered and post lodging of FIR, fresh crime details form (Exh.P7) was prepared. Interestingly, the witnesses for preparation of crime detail form were Prayagraj and Raj Kumar, whereas the witnesses of recovery of suicide note were Prayagchand and Shankarlal. Raj Kumar has not at all been examined by the prosecution. Furthermore, no satisfactory reasons have been given, as to why the suicide note could not be recovered on the same day, when the site was inspected on 21.03.2011 itself and even the rope, used for suicide, was recovered on the same date as well as panchnama & memo of photographs have also been taken on the same day. The statement of PW-11 (the Investigation Officer), Anil Kumar will itself reveal that during the course of the cross-examination, a specific question was asked to him, wherein he had admitted that in case of suicide, the first thing police searches is the suicide note. He, however, admitted that on 21.03.2011 he did not search the entire premises and did not examine any witness nor did he prepare the site memo. He strangely specified that at the relevant time, the family was busy in undertaking the last rites, therefore, they could not do the needful. However, he admitted that he had handed over the body to the relatives of deceased at around 2:30 PM on 21.03.2011 and, post that, he did not undertake any work pertaining to the case in hand. He further admitted that post 2:30 PM, neither any lock was fixed upon the premises nor any police official was deputed at the premises in question, where the suicide took place. He further admitted the fact that on the next day, the family members of the deceased opened the lock, however, he did not specify as to who opened the lock nor had any witness been (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (14 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] examined by the prosecution to prove as to who opened the lock of the premises in question. He further admitted that after receiving the alleged suicide note, he went to the family of the deceased and there itself, after some time the typed report Exh.P9 was submitted by Smt. Sumitra, wife of deceased. This part of the statement of the Investigating Officer, coupled with the statement of Shankar Lal (PW-1), the person who had lodged the initial report, based upon which inquest proceedings were initiated, will reveal that the entire process of recovery of the suicide note itself is in a shadow of doubt. Shankar Lal (PW-1) at the first instance, admitted that Exh.P1 is not written in his handwriting as he had very low vision. He admitted that Exh.P1 was written by the counsel named Prahlad Singh. He further admitted that on 21.03.2011, he did not inform the police as to why the deceased committed suicide and further admitted that he was not aware about the reason. He further admitted that prior to availability of suicide note, neither the father of deceased Manoj Kumar nor his family members had informed anything about committing suicide. He further admitted that on the next day, in the evening, the police informed him about the name of four accused. He further admitted that the police had shown him the suicide note and informed him that the same was received from the shop of deceased Manoj Kumar. He, thereafter, submitted that he was present at the site. Prayagchand (PW-4) i.e. witness of Exh.P7 (the site memo) as well as the witness of recovery of the suicide note vide Exh.P5 admitted that the police came upon the site on the next day and, thereafter, the recovery of the suicide note was made. He, however, showed his ignorance when a question was (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (15 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] asked about how long it took the police to arrive at site in question on the first date i.e. 21.03.2011. He further submitted that he is not aware as to when did the police reach at the site on the next day. On frequent questions being asked, he admitted that he is not aware whether the police came on the next date at around 8:00-9:00 AM in the morning or 10:00 AM or around 7- 8/9:00 PM in the evening. He further admitted that he is not aware when the memos were prepared by the police and had rather stated that the memos were signed by him at the police station only. He had further stated that his signature upon Exh.P8 i.e. suicide note were got done at the police station only. He further admitted that Shankar Lal (PW-1) has not got the signature of his own on Exh.P8 marked during the course of his statement. He further admitted that he is not aware as to when he signed Exh.P7 i.e. site plan.
16. Needless to emphasise that as far as recovery of the suicide note is concerned, Shankar Lal (PW-1) during his examination in chief, has not even referred to Exh.P8 or specified that he signed Exh.P8. He has rather stated that the deceased Manoj Kumar had signed the said Exhibit. Prayagchand (PW-4) on the other side, has admitted that his signatures upon the exhibits were made at the police station itself and not at the site. PW-11, the Investigating Officer, on the other hand, has admitted that after receiving the suicide note, he went to the house of the deceased and post that, the report Exh.P9 was lodged by Smt. Sumitra, wife of the deceased. These circumstances as well as the fact of non- examination of the witness, who had opened the lock nor his details being specified by the Investigating Officer or any other (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (16 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] witness, as also, considering the fact that no police official was deputed at the site in question, make the credibility of recovery of the suicide note very doubtful and the chances of implanting of the suicide note cannot be ruled out. This aspect of matter has not at all been considered by the learned Trial Court. Furthermore, when the police officials had inspected the site, recovered the rope, prepared panchnama and took the photographs etc., the non-recovery of the suicide note on the date in question, as also, no data including Rojnamcha being submitted to fortify as to when and why the police went upon the site in question on the next date, throws suspicion over the story of the prosecution with regard to recovery of the suicide note. The statement of Investigating Officer that he was free with all the proceedings at around 02:30 PM on 21.03.2011 and post that, he did not do anything itself threw a shadow of doubt on the prosecution's story regarding the recovery of the suicide note, as the Investigating Officer had sufficient time to conduct the inspection and could have rather recovered the suicide note on 21.03.2011 itself.
17. Interestingly, Prayagchand, witness of Exh.P7, in whose presence the suicide note was shown to have been recovered, has not supported the version of prosecution and has stated that his signatures were obtained at the police station. The other witness Rajkumar had not been examined by the prosecution. This, coupled with the fact that the witness Shankar Lal, who had signed the Exh.P5 i.e. the memo of recovery of suicide note, has admitted that he is having very low vision and that is the reason he could not write the complaint for inquest (Exh.P1) and the (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (17 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] same was written by a counsel, would show that the recovery of the suicide note and his presence there itself is doubtful.
18. Interestingly, the statement of Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) will itself reveal that the alleged suicide note was handed over to her by the police officials in the afternoon on 22.03.2011 and, thereafter, she had submitted the complaint. She further admitted that from 21.03.2011, till the submission of the complaint, the police did not take her statement. She further stated that the police had informed her the name of accused-appellants, which were mentioned in the suicide note. She further admitted that the complaint (Exh.P9) was typed on computer and was prepared by Jhawarlal Soni, Advocate at Jodhpur, who had got it typed and thereafter, handed over to her. Her statement will itself reveal that post recovery of the alleged suicide note, the FIR in question was lodged and, that too, after taking legal support from a lawyer at Jodhpur. Thus, up till the recovery of alleged suicide note, there was no complaint filed by her and she did not give any statement to the police during the inquest proceedings. These entire set of facts and circumstances collectively dent the story of the prosecution with regard to recovery of suicide note.
19. Firstly the prosecution has not been able to specify the reason as to why the suicide note was not recovered on 21.03.2011 itself when the site was inspected.
20. Secondly, no police official was posted at the premise in question and further the person who had opened the premise on the next day, was not examined which also throws a shadow of doubt with regard to the premise in question being in a sealed (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (18 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] position and there being no chance of somebody planting the suicide note at a later stage.
21. Thirdly, the witness of the site in question as well as recovery of suicide note, emphasizing that all the memos were prepared at the police station itself, as well as non-examination of another witness Raj Kumar, collectively demolish the story of prosecution with regard to recovery of the suicide note and preparation of site memo.
22. Fourthly, Shankarlal (PW-1) has not been able to point out any specific time as to when the suicide note was recovered nor he has asserted the fact of his signature being there on Exh.P8 i.e. suicide note, during the course of his examination-in-chief and, has further, shown his inability to even write a document because of his low vision as he was above 65 years of age. These facts throw a shadow of doubt about the entire recovery of a suicide note in question.
23. Fifthly, no Rojnamcha entry has been placed on record to show as to why and when did the police go to the site on the next date, nor any reasons have been specified for the same by the investigating officer. This also throws a shadow of doubt with regard to the investigation being conducted in an impartial and improper manner
(ii) Writing of the deceased upon the suicide note in question:-
24. I find substance in the arguments of counsel for the appellants regarding the prosecution failing to prove the writing of the deceased upon the suicide note in question. The counsel for the appellants had raised a doubt with regard to writing upon the (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (19 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] page no.2 of the suicide note and continuity of the suicide note. The FSL report Exh.P41 though fortified the fact of signature upon page no.3 of the suicide note being that of the deceased only, however, has failed to verify as to whether handwriting on the suicide note was of the deceased only for the reason of non supply of admitted documents of the deceased for FSL. In spite of such a note, no samples of admitted documents were sent by the investigating agency, and this fact definitely goes in favour of accused appellants.
25. This coupled with the fact that a perusal of the suicide note will reveal that first last line of the first page states that:
"ये सब नुक़सान क्रिकेट में हुआ है A मैंus क्रिकेट छोड़ दी थी" and the second page starts with: "बाज़ार में मेरा कोई कर्जा नहीं है ।" whereas the third page of the suicide note starts with: "अबू भाई जी मेरे से भयंकर भूल हो गई।"
26. A bare perusal of the suicide note will reveal that there is no continuity of sentence as far as page no.1 and 2 is concerned however, there is a continuity of sentence as far as page nos.1 and 3 is concerned. This coupled with the fact that if the words used in page no.1 and page no.3 are seen, they are identical, however, various letters including 'd' and 'e' in page no.2 are in entirely different font. Although, Court is not an expert as far as the handwriting is concerned, however, in view of the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides as under:
"73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.- In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (20 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person."
the Court has been given the power to compare the writing, signature or seal.
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the identical provision under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, in the case of Sukhvinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 5 SCC 152, has held as under:
"17. We shall now take up the case of Sukhdev Paul appellant. For the reasons already recorded while dealing with the case of Puran Chand, we hold that the so-called disclosure statement, Exh. PW10/C, made by him is also inadmissible and cannot be used to connect him with the crime. The only other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against him is that he is the author of the ransom letters Exh. PA and Exh. PC. To establish that the author of letters Exs. PA and PC is Sukhdev Paul, the prosecution has relied upon the report of the Asstt. Director (Documents), Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh dated 12.6.1992 Exh. PW10/J. The specimen writing of Sukhdev Paul was taken by the Tehsildar Magistrate PW13. It would, therefore, be relevant to first notice the provisions of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. It reads:
"73. Comparison of Signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.-In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (21 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.
18. Under the Indian Evidence Act, two direct methods of proving the handwriting of a person are:
(a) by an admission of a person who wrote it;
(b) by the evidence of some witness who saw it being written by that person.
Apart from these, there are some other methods of proof of handwriting by opinion. They are:
(1) by the evidence of a handwriting expert (Section
45).
(2) by the evidence of a witness acquainted with the handwriting of the person who is said to have written the disputed writing (Section 47).
(3) opinion formed by the Court itself on comparison made of the disputed writings with the admitted or specimen writings (Section 73).
We are concerned here primarily with the third mode.
19. A subsequent writing of an accused taken under the direction of the court is in substance a specimen writing obtained for comparison of the disputed writing with it. Though, Section 73 does not specifically say as to who could make such a comparison but reading Section 73 as a whole, it is obvious that it is the Court which has to make the comparison and it may form the opinion itself by comparing the disputed and the admitted writings or seek the assistance of an expert, to put before the Court all the material, together with reasons, which induce the expert to come to a conclusion that the disputed and the admitted writings are of one and the same author so that the court may form its own opinion by its own assessment of the report of the expert based on the data furnished by the expert. The function of a handwriting expert if to opine after a scientific comparison of the disputed writing with the admitted (specimen) writing with regard to the points of similarity and dissimilarity in the two set of writings."
28. Taking guidance from the abovementioned judgment, a bare perusal of comparison of page 1 and 3, admitted writing of documents Exh.P29 vis-a-vis page 2 of the alleged suicide note will reveal that the font of various words and the pattern of writing (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (22 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] specially letter 'd', 'e' and 'य'will reveal that the same is in totally different font. Thus, whether the suicide note in toto was written by the deceased is again not proved by the prosecution and the argument raised by counsel for the appellants holds substance, inasmuch as, the page nos.1 and 3 are apparently in a different handwriting as compared to page no.2 of the suicide note.
29. As far as the handwriting upon the suicide note is concerned, the witness who had asserted the same, i.e. Shankarlal (PW-1) has admitted that he was separated from the family of the deceased Manoj Kumar around 15 to 20 years ago and has further stated that he is not having a proper eye sight to write an application and that he got the application for inquest (Exh.P1) also prepared from a counsel due to his low eye sight. Thus, his averment with regard to recognising the handwriting of the deceased is without any substance. The same is the case with Prayagchand (PW-4) who also admitted that he had separated with the family of the deceased around 20 years ago. He has further admitted that he did not check the account books or copies of Manoj Kumar and has further admitted that his signature upon the exhibits were marked at the police station itself. Thus, a person staying away from the family for last 20 years would have no occasion to recognise the handwriting of the deceased, moreover, he has not pointed out any reason to know the writing of the deceased. Thus, his statement cannot be relied upon. Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) though had all the reasons to know the writing of deceased, has not admitted that all the three pages of the suicide (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (23 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] note were written in the handwriting of her husband only. Thus, the writing upon the entire suicide note has not been proved by the prosecution and it cannot be established that the entire suicide note was written in the handwriting of deceased only. The non furnishing of details of admitted documents before the forensic laboratory and the corresponding report of the forensic laboratory Exh.P41 demolishes the claim of prosecution with regard to writing of the deceased on the suicide note.
30. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. 2025 INSC 990 held that:-
36. It was later, even according to the FIS; on 01.03.2021, the suicide note was handed over to the appellant, when enquiries were made with the police. The appellant registers the FIR, still later on 09.03.2021. There is nothing produced either by the appellant or the State to show that the suicide note was recovered along with the body; which definitely would have been indicated in the Mahazar recorded at the inquest. There is also no verification carried out of the handwriting in the suicide note, juxtaposed with the admitted handwriting of the deceased. Above all, the suicide note makes pointed allegations against named individuals, which was not done earlier. It is for the first time that the Administrator was mentioned, with an allegation of extortion and attempt to forcefully take-over a Trust and the college it runs. The actions of the officers of the administration, alleged to be a direct result of the conspiracy hatched by the Administrator to coerce the petitioner, was never raised any time earlier. We cannot place any absolute reliance on the suicide note, to ferret out a case of abetment, allegations in which were not disclosed in the written complaint to the Hon'ble Speaker or the statements made before the Committee of Privileges.
Taking guidance from the abovementioned judgment and the facts discussed above, the writing on the suicide note has not at all been proved as also no reasons specified as to why the suicide note was (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (24 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] not recovered/discovered while conducting the inspection on the first instance. Thus, writing on entire suicide note of deceased has not been proved, nor has its recovery been satisfactorily explained by prosecution.
(iii) False implication of the accused:-
31. One of the arguments of counsel for the appellants is that post gathering of the alleged suicide note, the accused-appellants have falsely been implicated. As far as the role of accused is concerned, apart from the suicide note, the analysis of the statement of three witnesses would be important. Manoj (PW-3) in his examination in chief, had informed that the deceased was in tension on 21.03.2011 (next day of Holy, which was on 20.03.2011) at around 08:30 PM and at that time, upon asking, he told that 4-5 people were harassing him as there were certain financial outstandings with them. He further stated that the deceased named all the four persons, however, during the course of his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not aware about any loss caused to the deceased Manoj Kumar due to betting in cricket nor was he aware as to whether the information about harassment was given to parents or brothers of deceased. He further admitted that he did not use to talk to deceased Manoj Kumar earlier and that he did not suggest the deceased Manoj Kumar to lodge a complaint with the police officials. He further admitted that he was not aware as to who were the persons demanding money from Manoj Kumar nor was he aware of whether Manoj Kumar had any outstanding amount to be repaid to anyone.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (25 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
32. A bare perusal of the statement of Manoj (PW-3) will reveal that firstly, the date suggested by him was incorrect as on 21.03.2011 Manoj Kumar had already committed suicide. Secondly, he was not aware about the details of any outstanding of Manoj Kumar and further was not aware of the name of the persons who used to come to shop of Manoj Kumar to demand money and has further admitted that he did not have much proximity with deceased earlier, which itself shows that there was no proximity between him and Manoj Kumar to share the name of the appellants with him. He further admitted that he was a relative of Manoj Kumar, thus, his evidence is required to be carefully scrutinised and the same appears to be planted only for the reason of implicating the accused.
33. Iliyas (PW-5) is a taxi driver, who in his examination-in-chief had stated that on 20th March, he met Manoj Kumar and asked him the reason of his being upset, however, Manoj Kumar did not inform anything initially, however subsequently informed him that he had suffered losses in cricket betting and had thereafter named the appellants. He, however, admitted that Manoj Kumar had not informed him whether other persons were also demanding money from him and he did not know as to how much was due in the market from Manoj Kumar. He further admitted that he had not given the details with regard to demand being raised by the appellants again from Manoj Kumar, in his police statement (Exh.D2). He further admitted that Manoj Kumar did not inform him about the losses he suffered due to cricket betting. He further admitted that he was present at the time when the police came post suicide of Manoj Kumar, however, he did not inform the police (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (26 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] on that date with regard to deceased committing suicide because of losses caused in cricket betting.
34. A perusal of the statement of witness will further make it clear that he has resiled from his police statement (Exh.D2) and has not even pointed out any circumstances, which could come within the definition of abetment on the part of appellants for Manoj Kumar committing suicide. Kishan Kumar (PW-8) had stated that he was a close friend of deceased Manoj Kumar. He further stated that appellants Hunuman Gosai and Ashok Kandoi used to come upon the shop of deceased and both used to came separately and not together. He stated that after talking to them, when Manoj Kumar went to his shop, he was tensed and, on asking, he refused to inform anything, however, subsequently informed that he was tensed due to people demanding money from him. Further, he admitted in his cross-examination that Manoj Kumar did not inform him openly about the dues or anything but he admitted that many people were demanding money from deceased Manoj Kumar. He essentially did not emphasise that the accused instigated Manoj Kumar to commit suicide.
35. Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) has stated that on 20.03.2011, her husband was tensed. On asking, he informed the name of four appellants, while asserting that they were threatening to kill him as they were demanding money. She had stated that she informed the same to Sunil, however, Sunil had told her to not inform about this to anybody else. During the course of her cross-examination, she admitted that she had not informed the family members or anybody else with regard to appellants threatening the deceased.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (27 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] She further admitted that Manoj Kumar was always tensed and had suffered losses in all the businesses he had done. She further admitted that her husband was involved in betting and drugs also. She further showed her ignorance with regard to the outstanding due from Manoj Kumar in the market. She further admitted that deceased had informed her about his tension just 2-3 days prior and not on any date prior to that. She further admitted that no complaint was lodged against the appellants by deceased Manoj Kumar. She further admitted that she was not aware about accused coming to her house to demand money from her husband. She further submitted that her husband stated that he was not in a position to repay the amount and admitted that her husband was involved in betting in cricket for last 4 to 5 years and her husband never informed about how much the loss or profit he gained from the same. She further admitted that she had not seen her husband writing the details regarding the persons who were demanding money from him. A perusal of her statement along with the fact that complaint was lodged after recovery of the alleged suicide note, as also, non-examination of Sunil, throw shadow of doubt with regard to the story of prosecution and the statement of Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) who herself admitted that her husband was involved in betting and she was not aware as to how much amount was due in the market from him, as also, she admitted that her husband did not inform her till the date (except for 2-3 days prior to the incident) regarding the demand being made. These all facts collectively makes the statement of Smt. Sumitra (PW-2) not sufficient to bring home the offence under Section 306 IPC, as neither abetment to commit suicide is proved, (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (28 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] nor is she in a position to give a specific stand as to when demand was made by the accused and what was the amount due. Thus, the argument made by counsel for the appellants is having substance with regard to implication of the accused only for the reason that the deceased was to pay certain outstanding amount to them being the losses sustained by the deceased during cricket betting.
(iv) Whether offence under Section 306 IPC is made out only for the reason of demand of money:-
36. As far as the provisions of Sections 107 and 307 IPC are concerned, the same provide as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing. -- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First. -- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. --Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. --Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1. --A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2. --Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
"306. Abetment of suicide. --If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
37. A clear reading of the plain language of these Sections will reveal that to attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, the accused should have abetted the commission of suicide. When (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (29 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] Section 306 is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be: (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide. A person is said to abet the doing of a thing, who instigate any person to do that thing; or engages in conspiracy with one or more persons for doing of that thing, and if the act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to commit that thing; or intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission. In the present case, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that the appellants did any wilful conduct, which is of such nature, as is likely to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
38. As far as the provisions of Section 306 IPC are concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P." 1995 SCC (Cri) 943 has held in Para 3 as under:
"3. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events."
39. In the case of "Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh"
(2001) 9 SCC 618 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (30 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
40. The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC, which is long settled, was reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2004) 13 SCC 129, the same reads in paras 12 and 13 as under:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
41. Further, in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., reported in (2007)10 SCC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC, and it was observed as follows in para 6:
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (31 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything.
The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."
42. The scope and ambit of Section 107 of IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 of IPC has been discussed repeatedly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
43. In "Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal" (2010) 1 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 12 as under: -
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (32 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (33 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
44. Subsequently, in the case of "M. Mohan v. State" (2011) 3 SCC 626 the Hon'ble Apex Court, had held in Para 45 as under:
"45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
45. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police reported in (2023) 15 SCC 560 held as under: -
"45. This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the Accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable."
46. The Hon'ble Apex Court in another case of Mohit Singhal Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 3578/2023) dated 01.12.2023 has held as under: -
"9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide."
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (34 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013]
47. Furthermore, this Court in the case of "Mangal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.": S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1155/2023, decided on 24.01.2025 had an occasion to deal with various judgments dealing with the issue in hand and held that even if all the evidence on record including the charge-sheet and statements of witnesses are taken to be correct, and if there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner, then charges should not be framed. It was further observed that if it cannot be shown that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of the suicide and the motive to abet suicide is also not provided, then the necessary ingredients of proceeding with trial under Section 306 IPC are not made out. It was held as under:-
"The core element of Section 306 of IPC is the intentional abetment of suicide. Thus, for framing a charge for the offence under section 306 IPC, the learned court below is to consider whether the abettor intentionally instigated or aided the commission of the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or strained relationships do not suffice to establish abetment. In case of Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and Another Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"8. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'. When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (35 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband."
48. Recently, in the case of Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 INSC 1020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients- first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". It has been held that in order to satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (36 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It has been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide, however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances.
26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person.
27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra) reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held that the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior and (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (37 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] even the suicide note had been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act had been done by the accused- appellant therein in close proximity to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
"11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law."
(emphasis supplied)
28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, observed as follows: -
"20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387], after referring to the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306IPC observed as under: (SCC para 45) "45. ... It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (38 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not sustainable."
49. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh", (2025) 4 SCC 801 while dealing with the earlier judgments, held as under:-
"16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
"19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
"22. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days."
50. Recently again, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Ayyub v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr." 2025 INSC 168 in Criminal Appeal No.461/2025 by way of its judgment dated 07.02.2025, while reiterating the observations made in the case of Mahendra Awase (supra) and while considering all other judgments on the issue, held as under:
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (39 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] "21. We find none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned inthe charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record.
The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased Tanu with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. The surrounding circumstances, particularly the prior lodgment of the FIR by the first appellant against the family of Tanu for the death of his son Ziaul Rahman, does indicate an element of desperation on the part of the respondent no. 2 to somehow implicate the appellants. Reliance of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. belatedly on 07.11.2022,08.11.2022 and 22.11.2022, only reinforces out suspicion viz. one-sided, partial and inimical investigation. Under these circumstances, proceeding with the trial against the appellants in the charge-sheet as filed will be a gross abuse of process."
51. In the present case, the abetment of suicide has been contended to be in the form of demanding money. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in many cases that mere demanding of money would not amount to abetment of suicide. In the case of Mohit Singhal & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2024) 1 SCC 417, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: -
11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out against the appellants.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (40 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
52. This Court recently while dealing with the provisions of Section 306 IPC had an occasion to point out the necessary ingredients for abetment to commit suicide in the case of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1508/2023 (Haribhajan Ram v. State & Anr.) and after dealing with the various judgments of Supreme Court and consideration of the provisions of Section 107 and 306 IPC, has held that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the words uttered or the act committed were sufficient to instigate the commitment of suicide by the deceased and rather leaves no other option available to the deceased except to commit suicide.
53. Considering the entire case on the subject in question, even if, averment made by the prosecution is admitted to be true as it is that the money was being demanded by the appellants from the deceased, then too, in the opinion of the Court, the necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC are not made out in the cases in hand. The prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide and further the proximity of the demand and the suicide has also not been proved by the prosecution. Even otherwise, merely demanding the money, due or otherwise, would not make out the necessary ingredients of abetment to commit suicide, more particularly, when there is an admission with regard to the deceased being involved in cricket betting and sustaining losses and he had to repay the amount due to many persons.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46983] (41 of 41) [CRLA-478/2013] Conclusion:-
54. These aspects of the matter have not at all been considered by learned Trial Court. The prosecution has failed to prove that the act of demanding money (whether justified or forcible) by itself constituted the necessary instigation, leaving the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. No direct or indirect act of incitement to commit suicide has been brought on record by the prosecution. Even if the instigation from the alleged suicide note as well as the story of the prosecution is admitted, then too, at maximum there can be allegation of harassment, however, none of the ingredients of incitement to commit suicide are made out. Thus, this ground by itself is sufficient to acquit the accused- appellants irrespective of the findings given in the earlier paragraphs.
55. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment dated 04.06.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.10/2012 (06/2012) (32/11) pertaining to the FIR No.143/2011 at Police Station, Nohar, whereby the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC is quashed and set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The bail bonds are discharged and the accused- appellants need not surrender.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J 208-Love/-
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:29:56 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:07:21 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)