VISHALBHAI BHIKHABHAI NARODIA vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1006 of 2016
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2019
In
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1006 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
--- No
==========================================================
VISHALBHAI BHIKHABHAI NARODIA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
SAIRICA S RAJU(8761) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR JM BUDDHBHATTI(1239) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RAJENDRA K JOSHI(1589) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 08/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Mr.Raju, learned advocate for the applicants does not
press this application qua applicant no.1, who is husband of
the deceased. Permission is granted, as prayed for, without
going into merits of the case of applicant no.1. This revision
application is considered only qua applicants nos.2 to 5, who
are accused nos.2 to 5.
2. By way of the present application, the applicants have
prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar, in Sessions
Case No.26 of 2013, below Exhibit-6, whereby the learned
Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the discharge
application filed by the applicants.
3. The facts of the case are as under:-
3.1 Accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased while
applicant No.2 is the father-in-law. Applicant No.3 is the
mother-in-law and applicant Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law
of the deceased Bhargaviben Narodiya. As per the
prosecution's case, accused No. 1 got married to the daughter
of the complainant in 2007. The husband and wife both resided
separately at Ankleshwar. Applicant Nos.3 and 4 were married
and they often visited Ankleshwar. It is alleged that present
applicant Nos.2 to 5 used to taunt the deceased and instigate
accused no.1, and due to this alleged incident has happened
and the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, a complaint
was registered under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian
Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
3.2 After the investigation, the investigating officer filed the
charge sheet before learned JMFC, who was not having
jurisdiction to try the case and, therefore, the case was
committed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge,
culminating in Sessions Case No.26 of 2013. In this case, the
applicants-accused filed a discharge application under Section
227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was dismissed.
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
4. Going through the allegations and records/papers
collected during the investigation, it appears that accused
nos.2 to 5 were residing separately and they were not residing
with the deceased and accused no.1. The applicant no.4 was
residing with her husband in Dubai and later shifted to Surat,
one and a half years before the incident. The applicant no.5 is
a primary teacher and she is residing in Ahmedabad with her
husband for the last ten years. The applicant nos.2 and 3
reside in Gondal. The applicant no.2 has his own cotton
business and is financially independent.
5. Furthermore, eight months prior to the incident, the
deceased left her job she was suffering from mental trauma,
due to some gynecological problems and was under medical
treatment. One more important aspect is that a suicide note
th
dated 15 August 2010 was recovered during the
investigation. It was in the handwriting of the deceased
herself, which is confirmed by handwriting experts, as per the
FSL report. In the note, she clearly stated that neither her
husband nor her in-laws nor her parents are responsible for her
suicide. The note has been seized by the investigation officer
by drawing panchnama. Considering these facts and the
suicide note, the applicant nos.2 to 5 are not even remotely
connected with instigation, and there is no proximate cause or
iota of evidence regarding taunting or mental harassment by
applicant nos.2 to 5.
6. Regarding the offence under Section 306 IPC, the
prosecution must prove abetment and instigation. In this
regard, reference is made to the provisions of Section 306 and
Section 107 of IPC:
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
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.
Abetment defined under Section 107 of the IPC
involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding that person in doing of 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 it required
before a person can be said to be abetting the
commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Abetment - Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a
thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct
offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person,
abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any
person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more
other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing. These things are essential to
complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate"
literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about
by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in
the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides
that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of
abetment and there is no provision for the punishment
of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished
with the punishment provided for the original offence.
'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence
abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of
which a person is charged with the abetment is normally
linked with the proved offence.
7. Section 306 of IPC penalizes abetment of suicide. It is a
unique legal phenomenon in the Indian Penal Code that the
only act, the attempt of which along will become an offence. In
order to invoke the provisions of Section 306 of Indian Penal
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
Code, section 107 of Indian Penal Code is required to be
satisfied by the prosecution. Section 107 of the Indian Penal
Code includes the acts, omissions and commissions and also
instigation with the deliberation and intention. Instigation
consists in actively suggesting and stimulating another to act.
It may be personal or through a third party. Instigation
necessarily indicates some active suggestion, or support or
stimulation to the commission of the act itself. There has to be
a reasonable certainty in regard to the meaning of the words
used by the 'inciter' in order to judge whether or not there was
an incitement, but it is not necessary, in law, to prove the
actual words used for the incitement. The word 'abetment'
includes clause-3 namely 'abetment by aiding'. The third way
of abetting is by intentionally aiding the doing of a thing by an
act or illegal omission. In abetment by 'aid', it is not the
intention to aid the commission of crime, that is punished, but
the fact that something is done or not done, whereby the
commission of a crime is rendered more easy. In instigation,
the criminal intention is punished; in conspiracy, the intention
plus some act; in aid, the act itself. Reading Cl. 3 of the section
with Expl.2, which goes with it, for abetment by aid, four things
must be combined.
8. An act which merely amounts to aiding the commission of
an offence is not an abetment. The aiding must snowball into
'intentionally aiding' the doing of a thing. The commission of
the act must be the dominant intention of the person who aids
it. If a person only knows or has only reason to believe that his
act would facilitate the commission of offence, it cannot be
said that his dominant intention was that.
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
9. On one part of the Sub-clause (3) of Section 107 can be
divided into two parts for doing and aiding act by making
omission in doing an act. At times even refraining from action
and mere impassivity makes a person liable to penalty. If
person is duty bound to perform his duties in a particular
manner and if he does not behaved in a manner, he ought to
have, he causes continuous pressure and effects the mental
attitude to the victim. The omission on the part of the accused
shall include word 'aid' as mentioned in Section 107 of the
Indian Penal Code. In present case no such evidence in
connection of abetment to suicide being tendered by
prosecution. Thus, the case is required to be considered in the
light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2007)10 SCC
797 has held that instigation literally means to provoke, incite,
urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. Hon’ble
Supreme Court has noted that before a person may be said to
have abetted the commission of suicide, he must have played
an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide.
11. In the case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
reported in (2010)12 SCC 190 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as follows:-
“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
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
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 I.P.C.
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.”
12. In the case of M. Arjunan vs. State (represented by
its Inspector of Police) reported in (2019)3 SCC 315 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to elucidate the
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the
IPC in the following observations:
“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 I.P.C.”
13. Similarly, in another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana
reported in (2019)17 SCC 301 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC and
the factors to be considered in determining whether a case
falls within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in following
terms:
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
“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 behaviour 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.”
14. Further, 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
behavior, each case is required to be examined on its own
facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having
bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the
deceased. 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
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused
guilty of abetment of suicide. Conviction under Section 306 IPC
is not sustainable 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. 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 I.P.C.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan
Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2020)10 SCC 200
has held that, as in all crimes, mens rea has to be established.
To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section
107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime
must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove
mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or
show that the accused had a guilty mind and in furtherance of
that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.
16. It is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno vs. State
reported in (2023)15 SCC 560 , wherein in Page 16 of 23,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus:
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
“45. …It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of
suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without
there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in
terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”
17. Considering the ratio laid down in aforesaid judgment
and the facts of the present case, no offense is made out
under Section 306 against present applicants nos.2 to 5.
18. Regarding the offence under Section 498-A, as discussed
earlier, there is no iota of evidence of cruelty. Merely being
relatives is not a ground to put the accused on trial. In Preeti
Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
under:-
“28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately
matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All
the courts in our country including this court are flooded with
matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and
unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the
society.
29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases
emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
which reads as under:-
“ 498-A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.”
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
19. The applicants are facing charge of Section 498-A of IPC.
and as per the allegations made in the complaint, ingredients
of Section 498A are not made out. In this regard, it would be
apposite to refer the decisions of the Apex Court in case of
Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023
INSC 779 / (Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015) and Achin
Gupta Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Reported in 2024
INSC 369 , wherein the Court has discussed the common
tendency of over-implication and involving near relatives of the
husband as accused.
20. In the backdrop of above discussion, the discharge
application filed by the present applicant nos.2 to 5-accused
deserves consideration. The object of the discharge
mechanism occupy a crucial position within the judicial
process. It serves as a preliminary judicial filter that operates
before the formal commencement of the trial. Its primary
purpose is to ensure that the only cases supported by legal
foundation proceed to trial, whereby upholding fairness for the
accused, while preserving the judicial efficiency. It protects the
individual from being forced into the rigors of full criminal trial,
when the prosecution material does not disclose even prima
facie case. This mechanism is essential to uphold the
constitutional values of personal liberty and constitutional
safeguards, which prevents the wastage of the judicial time
and maintains balance between the prosecution and the
defence to eliminate frivolous prosecution at the early stage.
Discharge mechanism enhances the public confidence in the
judicial system.
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026
R/CR.RA/1006/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
21. For the foregoing reasons and observations, present
revision application is allowed qua applicant nos.2 to 5 and
the impugned order dated 26.8.2016 passed by learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar, in Sessions
Case No.26 of 2013, below Exhibit-6 is hereby quashed and set
aside qua them. The proceedings pursuant to FIR being I-CR
No.152 of 2010 registered with GIDC Ankleshwar Police
Station, District-Bharuch and all consequential proceedings are
hereby dropped so far as applicants nos.2 to 5 are concerned,
and they are discharged from charges of offences under
Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code read with
Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act levelled against
them. If the applicant nos.2 to 5 are on bail, they need not
surrender. The applicant nos.2 to 5 are ordered to be set at
liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The
bail and bail bond stands cancelled and surety, if any, stands
discharged. Rule is made to above extent. The learned trial
Court is directed to expedite the trial against accused no.1.
Record and Proceedings be sent to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
22. In view of above order, connected application for stay
being Criminal Misc. Application No.2 of 2019 also stands
disposed of.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
R.S. MALEK
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by R.S. MALEK(HC00180) on Tue May 12 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:18 IST 2026