Full Judgment Text
2025:BHC-NAG:9758
1
cra24.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.24/2025
Vinod Shivakumar,
age 40 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o 3/4 Kachnar Block,
Forest Officer Colony,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... Applicant
- Versus -
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Dharni,
Tah. Dharni, Distt. Amravati. ... Non-applicant
-----------------
Mr. Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate a/b. Mr. A.C. Jaltare, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. V.A. Thakare, A.P.P. for non-applicant/State.
----------------
CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 11.9.2025.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 24.9.2025.
JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. By this revision application, the applicant has taken an exception
to the order passed below Exh.25 by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Case No.52/2021 thereby
rejecting the application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for discharge filed by the applicant.
2
cra24.2025.odt
3. Range Forest Officer, Harisal Range, has committed suicide on
25.3.2021. She has left behind three suicide notes addressing to her
husband, mother and the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Amravati-Mr. Reddy wherein the allegations are made against the applicant
and Mr. Reddy that they are responsible for driving her to the level where she
was left with no option but to end her life.
4. The offence was registered against the applicant as well as Mr.
Reddy. The F.I.R. against Mr. Reddy is quashed by this Court on 13.8.2021.
5. The allegations, in all the three suicide notes, are about the rude,
cruel, obnoxious behaviour of the applicant which forced the deceased to
finish her life. The specific allegations made against this applicant are (i)
ordering of encroachment removal, (ii) in connivance with one Manisha Uike
lodging of F.I.R. under the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (iii) undertaking rehabilitation of villages, (iv)
reprimands and issuance of show cause notices to the deceased in respect of
her official duty and (v) causing miscarriage.
6. The applicant had previously approached this Court seeking
quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet filed for the offence punishable
under Sections 306, 312, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. At that time, the applicant had
restricted his claim to the extent of Section 312 I.P.C. and insofar as the other
offences are concerned, all contentions were kept open and liberty was
reserved to take appropriate steps before the trial Court. This Court has
quashed and set aside the offence punishable under Section 312 of I.P.C.
against the applicant on 30.6.2023.
3
cra24.2025.odt
7. The learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has urged that the
deceased has levelled different allegations and has expressed different
emotions in all of the aforementioned suicide notes. In the suicide note
addressed to Mr. Reddy, the deceased had raised in all seven allegations.
Firstly, the applicant was light eared. Secondly, the applicant threatened her of
suspension. Thirdly, the applicant abused her in front of villagers. Fourthly,
the applicant compelled her to do work. Fifthly, because of the applicant an
atrocity case was registered against her, sixthly, the applicant made her to do
illegal work of removal of encroachment and seventhly, the applicant was
responsible for her miscarriage.
8. The learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has submitted that
being very light eared is not an allegation in the eye of law. For suspension,
the applicant had no power to place her under suspension without sanction of
the APCCF as per established procedure. The instances where the present
applicant has stated to have lost his temper, was in regard to unsatisfactory
work being done. As the superior officer, the applicant is expected, rather
duty-bound, to ensure the quality and timely completion of work by his
subordinates. Unparliamentary language is not used by this applicant while
reprimanding the deceased. He has given show cause notices to her to
improve her work in good faith as per the mandate of Section 93 I.P.C. and
also as per Section 81 I.P.C. Regarding reprimanding the deceased on several
times, applicant being superior officer to the deceased was well within his
right to ask the questions and reprimand all junior officers, including the
deceased, for all their mistakes and dereliction.
4
cra24.2025.odt
9. The deceased used to report to the office in casual clothes, taking
leaves and not reporting on due date, improper investigation of wildlife
crimes and illegal timber felling in her range etc. are the complaints against
the deceased and dereliction of her duties. Being In-charge, it was the duty of
the applicant to keep a check on the functions of his subordinates. She was in
habit of casual and improper work. Continuance of ignorant behaviour by her
was the reason behind the issuance of show cause notices and D.O. letters to
the deceased. One Manisha Uike has lodged the complaint against the present
applicant under the Atrocities Act.
10. The learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has pointed out
that from the suicide notes it reveals that the deceased alleges that nobody
ever insulted her so much as the present applicant does. On rare instances,
where the applicant has lost his temper, were in relation to unsatisfactory and
substandard work carried out by his subordinate officers and reprimands were
made with all other erring staff without singling out anybody. Regarding the
allegations about not approving her leaves, the applicant has stated that he
has no authority to grant or reject her leaves but to only recommend leaves to
his superior officers. Out of 8 occasions, the deceased was granted leave on
six occasions. She remained absent from her duties for more than a month
without any communication and after rejoining had applied for approval of
leaves. She had already availed of medical leaves. Therefore, there is no
substance in the allegations made that because of the leaves not granted by
this applicant, it caused harassment to her.
11. One Manisha Uike has ruined her life and because of which she
will never be happy are the allegations which are not against this applicant.
Said Manisha Uike is not co-accused in this case.
5
cra24.2025.odt
12. It is trite position of law that in case of abetment of suicide,
prima facie, it should appear that the person possesses mens rea while driving
the other person to commit suicide. Very ailment of offence under Section
306 is that the accused either aided or abetted the suicide or at least be
willfully responsible for creation of circumstances in which the alleged victim
left with no other choice but to commit suicide. In the present matter, even if
everything in the charge-sheet is accepted to be gospel truth, even then the
intention of the applicant of making the deceased to commit suicide is not
forthcoming. Intention i.e. mens rea is the primary ailment of establishing
charge under Section 306 I.P.C. Such intention was not even been alleged by
the deceased through her suicide notes, or her husband through his multiple
statements or anywhere else in the charge sheet.
13. When dealing with the charge under Section 306 of I.P.C., the
only aspect that takes paramount importance is the thought that loomed upon
the mind of the victim at the time of commission of offence and all the other
aspects take back seat and have utmost negligible value. The allegations
which she had made are (i) forced to carry out rehabilitation work, (ii) forced
the deceased to smell animal scat etc. Handling of an investigation of animal
scat is a routine procedure that has to be carried out by the Forest Officials
which plays a vital role in wildlife management and preservation.
14. Third is about reprimands given to the deceased for improper
maintenance of solar panels and non-appointment of trained, skilled J.C.B.
Driver.
6
cra24.2025.odt
15. The deceased was instructed by the applicant to appoint trained
J.C.B. Driver, who would carry out work efficiently, however, the deceased had
ignored a direct instruction and had employed a driver from a neighbouring
village. Due to this fact, the work allotted to the deceased was not going on
properly and hence, the applicant had only reprimanded her for the official
work.
16. It is further argued that the only incident that took place in the
close proximity of the suicide is the one that had happened in the afternoon of
the suicide when the mother of the deceased left for Satara. Even if the
suicide note addressed to the mother is perused, it is evident that the
deceased was sad about not being able to take care of her mother. Even the
incident of her mother leaving is rather animated and the same is evident
from the statements of Sunil Bethekar, Jyoti Bisen and her mother.
17. From the statement of her mother it is seen that immediately
before her death she had not either expressed her discontent towards the
present applicant or complained against him to any extent. The deceased
herself was facing the departmental enquiry and the department had lodged a
charge sheet under the allegations of corruption against her and that till the
conclusion of the investigation and enquiry, the deceased was not transferred
from earlier Forest Range to the one under the applicant which is evident from
the suicide note addressed to Mr. Reddy.
18. The allegations of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. are not
satisfied by the charge sheet. Hence, prayed to quash and set aside the order
dated 24.10.2024 passed below Exh.25 in Sessions Case No.52/2021 by
allowing this application.
7
cra24.2025.odt
19. The learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that there are
three suicide notes which speak about the harassment meted out by the
present applicant to the deceased Dipali Chavhan. Falsely implicating her in
atrocity case and troubling her on one or the other reason, by making her to
visit in the odd hours at the spot especially when the deceased was pregnant
and the applicant had made her go for trek which resulted into miscarriage of
her pregnancy. Deceased Dipali Chavhan was directed to remove the
encroachment in Mangiya village without following procedure as prescribed in
Section 34A of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and thus, the other villagers
opposed the removal of encroachment. When said fact was informed by the
deceased Dipali to the applicant Vinod Shivakumar, he threatened the
deceased for registration of an atrocity case. She has also posted whats-app
messages about the complaint against the present applicant Vinod Shivkumar
to Mr. Reddy.
20. The telephonic exchange between the applicant and the deceased,
that had happened on the same day was recorded by the deceased in her
mobile phone and forwarded to the other witnesses. Serving of liquor and
meat in the rest house is prohibited under Section 29(A) of the Wildlife
Protection Act, the applicant acting as Deputy Conservator of Forest being
higher authority to the deceased used to direct the deceased and other
subordinate employees to serve him with liquor and non-vegetarian food at
the rest house. Said allegations are reflected from the statements of Jyoti
Bisen, Sanjiv Dhikar, Rajesh Mohite, Shakuntala (mother of deceased) and
A.C.F. Patwari.
8
cra24.2025.odt
21. The allegations about causing miscarriage and rehabilitation of
Malur villagers are also supported by the statements of witnesses. The
statements of witnesses would show that prior to the commission of suicide by
the deceased Dipali, the applicant had visited area of deceased R.F.O. and had
reprimanded the deceased on the ground of excavation, water holes,
installation of hand-pump, JCB machine about construction of quality of the
huts, maintenance of the solar panels installed at various spots and about
various other miscellaneous reasons. There is an ample evidence in the form
of the statements of witnesses who have witnessed the harassment caused by
the applicant with an intention of commission of suicide by the deceased. The
evidence in the form of suicide notes and the statements of witnesses are
sufficient enough to bring home the guilt of the present applicant in the crime
punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. with the aid of Section 107 of I.P.C.
Hence, prayed to reject the application.
22. A lady Range Forest Officer has committed suicide by the official
pistol. Before committing the suicide, she called to her mother, husband and
her driver and informed about her suicide. At that time, the deceased was
alone at her home. She has written three suicide notes and in all the three
suicide notes, she had made allegations about the harassment by the applicant
at the workplace.
23. Harassment in itself does not sufficient unless it is accompanied
by deliberate acts of inducement or facilitation. It is well established legal
principle that the presence of clear mens rea, the intention to abet the act, is
essential. Mere harassment by itself is not sufficient to find an accused guilty
of abetment of suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct
9
cra24.2025.odt
action by the accused that led the deceased to end his or her own life. The
ailment of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred. It must be with
intent and explicitly discernible. Without this the intentional requirement for
establishing the abetment under law is not satisfied.
24. It is necessary to consider the conduct of an accused including
provoking, urging or torturing the victim’s self-esteem which created an
unbearable situation. If the accused’s actions were intended only to harass or
express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or instigation.
25. Reliance is placed by the learned Senior Advocate for the
applicant in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others V/s.
State of Gujarat reported in (2025) 2 SCC 116 wherein in paragraph No.32
following observations are made:-
“32. This Court in Ude Singh V/s. State of Haryana, held that to
convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the intent or mental state
to commit the specific crime must be evident when assessing
culpability. It was observed as under (SCC pp.321-22, para 16):
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission
of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause
of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of
abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving
multifaceted and complex attributes of human 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
10
cra24.2025.odt
abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could
only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if
the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of
suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the
decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the
action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce
a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not
be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But,
on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his
continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the
deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide,
the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If
the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem
and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim
to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment
of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused
in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual
acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only
of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall
short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the
accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular
case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter
of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to
be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the
surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of
the accused and the deceased.”
11
cra24.2025.odt
26. In the present case, the deceased has made specific allegations against
the present applicant. Before committing the suicide, she has wrote three
letters. The pages of the suicide letters shows that she has written it in a
perfectly disturbed state of mind. It appears from the letters that the deceased
was hypersensitive to ordinary discords and differences which happened in
her day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the
others and different people behave differently in the same situation. However,
on carefully scrutinizing the facts, in this case, it is seen that three suicide
notes were written by the deceased to her husband, her mother and to the
higher officer- Mr. Reddy.
27. Though she has written the letter to the higher officer, she has made
allegations against him also i.e. Mr. Reddy and has stated about her
departmental enquiry. From the said suicide note, it appears that she has
mentioned that she was not able to live with her mother and give time to her
family.
28. The allegations are made against this applicant about calling her
to meet him at odd hours and using filthy language. She has narrated about
her official work. She has blamed the applicant for her miscarriage. When she
informed about the offence registered against her under the Atrocities Act, the
reaction of the applicant is mentioned in specific words. One of the way of
torturing her was not granting her leave. She has stated about since the last
two weeks, the applicant visited Harisal and used to talk in a derogatory
manner, used to abuse her, call her in Sankul at night and tried to take
advantage of her loneliness but as she has not acted as per his wish, he has
insulted her and harassed her mentally and, therefore, she has committed the
12
cra24.2025.odt
suicide. She has specifically mentioned the name of this applicant as the
person who is responsible for her death.
29. In the letter written to her husband, she has stated that the applicant
had insulted her and now she cannot tolerate it any more. In said letter, she
has mentioned about one Manisha Uike, who has lodged the complaint
against her under the Atrocities Act. She has stated that she has regrets of not
giving birth to his child.
30. In suicide letter to her mother, she has stated about not giving time to
her. She was disturbed due to miscarriage and in one paragraph, she has
mentioned about the mental harassment by the applicant.
31. As per charge sheet, she has also forwarded the said letters on her
whats-app group and the Driver and the other employees working in Harisal
have received it.
32. On perusal of all these three suicide letters, it appears that though she
has made allegations against the applicant about harassment, taking
disadvantage of her loneliness and not granting leave to her, on considering
the contents in all the three letters, it is seen that her mental status was
disturbed but it has to be seen whether it is sufficient to book a person like the
applicant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code on the basis of the allegations made in her three suicide notes.
33. It is admitted position that the deceased was working under the
applicant.
13
cra24.2025.odt
34. On perusal of statements of the witnesses, it appears that she has
disclosed about it to the persons who were with her. Here, the question would
be as to whether for the suicide of a person being of disturbed mind, the
official acts done by the superior will be sufficient to book such a superior
officer for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
35. It is observed by this Court in the case of Dilip Ramrao Shirsao V/
s. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR OnLine 2016 Bom 21 wherein reliance
is placed by this Court on the observations made in para 20 by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, which read as under:-
“20. As has been held by Their Lordships of the Apex Court that for
permitting a trial to proceed against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is
necessary for the prosecution to at least prima facie establish that the
accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. In the absence of availability of such material, the
accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. As has been held by
Their Lordships of the Apex Court that abetment involves mental
process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused
in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide,
the said persons cannot be compelled to face the trial. Unless there is
clear mens rea to commit an offence or active act or direct act, which
led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option or the act
intending to push the deceased into such a position, the trial against
the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, in our
considered view, would be an abuse of process of law.”
36. It is also observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Abhinav Mohan
Delkar V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1725 of which paragraph Nos.22, 23 and 40 read as under:-
14
cra24.2025.odt
“22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein
before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant
harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the
ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to
be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the
direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last
proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme
act of taking one’s life. Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the camel’s
back’; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden
impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the
victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual
predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and
demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens
rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one
point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life
cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting
abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in
the mind of the victim.
23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or
option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or
said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant
abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the
intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from
the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which
in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the
accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly
drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of
goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or
whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising
in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of
each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship
between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one
case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless
there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another
person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment
under Section 306.
40. True, a person unable to bear the pressure or withstand a
humiliation or unable to oppose, may succumb to the extreme act of
ending his own life, in desperation; but that would not necessarily
15
cra24.2025.odt
mean that the alleged perpetrator had an intention to lead the victim
to eventual death by his own or her own hands. We find no such
instigation on the part of the accused in this case, or a definitive
abetment to suicide, as alleged in the FIR. There arises a cloud on
the suicide note, when looking at the admitted statements recorded
in the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges and also the
manner in which the note was introduced in the case. Before the
Committee of Privileges, no reference was made to the various
allegations in the suicide note, against the named officers. We have
found the suicide note to be suspect and we are not convinced that
there is any modicum of material in the case to find abetment of
suicide. The High Court was not in error, when it quashed the FIR,
when no case is made out from the FIS.”
37. After considering the legal provisions, I would like to go through
the statements made by the witnesses.
38. On perusal of statement of husband of deceased it appears that
she called him before committing suicide and asked him to come fast as she
wanted to see him for the last time. It shows that she was depressed and had
made up her mind to end her life. In his statement, he has narrated the
allegations made against the applicant in her suicidal note written to her
officer about the harassment by the applicant at the work place. From the
suicide letter written to her husband by the deceased, it appears that the
reason for her suicide was that she was not disappointed or was not disturbed
because of any family problem or any other problem. She has stated about
the torture at work place at the hands of applicant.
39. In statement of labour Surtya Bhilve he has narrated that the
applicant used to insult the deceased in their presence and the fact that once
16
cra24.2025.odt
she had cried for the same. Other allegations about calling her to meet at odd
hours is not mentioned by this witness.
40. Statement of witness Kaushalya Dhakane is important. She is a
Forest Guard. She has specifically stated that the applicant never behaved in
an incandescent manner with her or deceased and deceased never informed
her about it. From the statement of this witness, it reveals that the applicant
scolded the deceased while performing official duties and for not observing
protocol as the Driver of the deceased had parked his car in front of the car of
the applicant and, therefore, as the Driver has not maintained protocol, the
applicant scolded her and abused her in front of the Driver.
41. The statement of Pushpa Jagtap shows that the applicant is of
high temperament and was not behaving properly with the persons who are
working under him, therefore, Mr. Reddy advised him to join meditation or
course of art of living to control his temperament. She has stated that
deceased has not told anything against applicant to her. But, from the
statement of this witness, it appears that as the applicant used to behave in
such a rude manner with the subordinates, after receiving complaints, Mr.
Reddy had given him advise for the meditation.
42. Statement of Sunil Bethekar, the Driver of the deceased, shows
that on the date of incident he took mother of deceased to Satara and he was
on the way when the deceased informed him about committing suicide and
having revolver in her hand. She wanted to commit said act in presence of
this witness and her mother. She had asked him to call her on video call but as
there was no range he could not call and thereafter when he called her, there
17
cra24.2025.odt
was no response. This witness has also stated about the harassment at the
hands of applicant to the deceased when she was working with him. For many
times, the applicant insulted her in presence of this witness.
43. In statement of one Kishor Lokhande, the Clerk in the office, has
stated about insulting treatment given to him by the applicant and due to his
harassment, this witness was also about to take V.R.S. but deceased pacified
him. This witness has narrated about miscarriage of the deceased and he
himself had took her to the hospital and at that time also the deceased was
blaming that because of the applicant, as he asked the deceased to walk on a
muddy road for about 5 to 6 kilometers, there was miscarriage. She blamed
the applicant for her miscarriage and it is reflected from the statement of this
witness.
44. No doubt, the words uttered on the spur of the moment or any
other quarrel without something more i.e. an overt act cannot be presumed to
have been uttered with mens rea. The onus is on the prosecution to show the
circumstances which compelled the deceased to take an extreme step to bring
an end to her life.
45. In the present case, apart from three suicide notes, the statements
are recorded by the police during the course of investigation, which tend to
show that on account of harassment at the hands of the applicant, the
deceased committed suicide. One of the witness Kishor Lokhande has
prepared his mind to take V.R.S. The deceased was put under tremendous
pressure of work. Prima facie it appears that the conduct of the applicant with
18
cra24.2025.odt
deceased had left the deceased with no other option but to end her life and,
therefore, Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted.
46. Learned A.P.P. has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra V/s. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
reported in AIR 2010 SCW 1446 to support the contention that apart from
suicide note the statement of the witnesses shows the involvement of the
applicant. It is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Praveen
Pradhan V/s. State of Uttaranchal and another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734
of which paragraph 18 reads as under:
“18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that
instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a
particular case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out
as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which
forced the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may
not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have
direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has
to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined
whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the
situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide.
More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the
proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative
view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section
228 Cr.P.C.”
47. In the present case, the alleged harassment had not been in a
casual manner, rather a matter of persistent harassment. The deceased
suffered persistent harassment and humiliation at the hands of the applicant.
19
cra24.2025.odt
48. Reliance is placed by the learned A.P.P. on the observations made
in paragraph No.14 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. Deepak
reported in AIR 2019 SC 5604 which read as under:
“14. It is of relevance to refer to certain judgments of this Court.
In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), the appellant
and two other individuals were charged under Section 306 read
with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It had been alleged that the
appellant and the other accused persons had forcibly compelled the
deceased to sign a settlement giving up a part of his share in the
profits from the sale of certain land. This led to a dispute and as a
result of the mental harassment suffered by the deceased, he
committed suicide. The Court affirmed the framing of charges by
the trial court. The two-judge Bench of this Court laid down the
ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide. Justice D K Jain
held thus:
19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 1088 : (AIR 2001 SC 3837), where the accused by his acts or
by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. In other words, in order to
prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it
has to be established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by
words, deeds or willful omission or conduct which may even be a
willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the
deceased by his deeds, words or willful omission or conduct to
make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward
direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or
encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the
manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the
necessary concomitant of instigation.”
(Emphasis supplied)
After due consideration of the facts and circumstances, the Court
noted that prima facie, the offence of abetment of suicide was made
out:
22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted
above, statements recorded by the police during the course of
investigation, tend to show that on account of business transactions
20
cra24.2025.odt
with the accused, including the appellant herein, the deceased was
put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was
perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct
of the appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased
was left with no other option except to end his life and therefore,
clause Firstly of Section 107 IPC was attracted.”
(Emphasis supplied)
It was also noted that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court
has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a
ground for “presuming” that the accused had committed the offence:
“25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a
view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their
face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting
the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court
may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial
stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this
stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to
find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has
committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the
conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.”
49. It is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of
Maharashtra V/s Som Nath Thapa and others reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659
while considering the case of discharge that at the stage of framing of charge,
the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any
ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As
framing of charge affects a person’s liberty substantially, need for proper
consideration of material warranting such order as emphasized. The Court
has placed reliance on Stri Atyachar Virodhi Parishad V/s. Dilip Nathumal
Chordia reported in (1989) 1 SCC 715 and observed that the Court has to see
while considering the question of framing of charge as to whether the material
brought on record would reasonably connect the accused with crime. No
more is required to be enquired into.
21
cra24.2025.odt
50. In R.S. Nayak V/s. A.R. Antulay reported in (1986) 2 SCC 716,
the Court has observed that a better and clearer statement of law would be
that if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the
offence, a Court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against the accused
exists and shall frame a charge against him for committing the offence.
Paragraph Nos.31 and 32 of said judgment read as under:
“31. Let us note the meaning of the word "presume". In Black's Law
Dictionary it has been defined to mean "to believe or accept upon
probable evidence". (Emphasis ours). In Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary it has been mentioned that in law "presume" means "to
take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming",
Stroud's Legal Dictionary has quoted in this context a certain
judgment according to which "A presumption is a probable
consequence drawn from facts (either certain or proved by direct
testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged." (Emphasis supplied). In
Law Lexicon by P. Ramanath Aiyer the same quotation finds place at
page 1007 of 1987 Edn.
32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on
record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the
offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge
exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the
accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge,
though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the
accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage
of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record
cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the
prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage…..”
51. After considering the statement of witnesses, it appears that the
deceased was harassed or tortured by the applicant. She must be high-
sensitive. From the statement of Kishor Lokhande it is seen that he has also
suffered the harassment at the hands of applicant and was about to take V.R.S.
22
cra24.2025.odt
Mr. Reddy had given advise to the applicant to have meditation and course of
art of living, which shows level of his torture and high temperament. It
appears from the statement of witnesses that subordinate officials were
tolerating the harassment of the applicant. The deceased was tired of his
harassment. Instead of protecting the subordinate officer, especially when she
informed about threats by the villagers while removing encroachment to
register the case of atrocity, the applicant also gave her threats of keeping her
in lock-up. The deceased was depressed because of the treatment given by the
applicant. There was no other reason for her to commit suicide.
52. About the immediate nexus, the learned Senior Advocate for the
applicant has stated that mens rea and immediate nexus was not there. But
collective harassment since years, which the deceased has tolerated, was in
her mind, and because of the applicant there was miscarriage and the
harassment was continued till her death. It is a cumulative effect of the
continued harassment by the applicant, which shows that it was beyond her
tolerance.
53. For the aforesaid reasons, at this stage, without appreciating the
evidence of the witnesses, who have specifically stated about the harassment,
it is not proper to discharge the applicant. Hence the revision application
stands dismissed.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/09/2025 18:41:57