Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: instigation to commit suicide in Gaurav @ Goru vs State on 14 November, 2025Matching Fragments
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."
"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.
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) [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.