Full Judgment Text
2024:BHC-AS:3627-DB
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1416 OF 2019
1. Anirudh Arun Bhandarkar
Age: 26 years
Occupation : Student as well as
partner in Bhandarkar General
Stores.
2. Supriya Arun Bhandarkar
Age: 51 years
Occupation : Housewife as well
as partner in Bhandarkar General
Stores
both the above residing at
Bhandarkar Bungalow, Next to
Police Station, Court Lane, S.V.
Road, Borivili (West), Mumbai-
...Applicants
400092.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra (at
the instance of Inspector of
Police, MHB Colony Police
Station Borivili (west)
2. Amit Raghuvir Acharya,
Age: 31 years
Occupation : Service Residing at:
El Palaza, 600-601, Opp. Citizen
Bank, IC Colony, Borivili (West),
Mumbai. ...Respondents
….
Ms Aruna Pai with Mr. N.M. Nadar for the Applicants.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Samkit Shah i/b. M/s Jaykar and partners for Respondent No.2.
Megha 1/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
th
DATED: 16 JANUARY, 2024.
JUDGMENT (Per SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.):-
1. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for th
respective parties.
2. By this application, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the
Applicants have sought to quash the FIR No.238 of 2017 registered wit
M.H.B. Colony Police Station, Borivali, Mumbai, for the offenc
punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.
3. Ms Aruna Pai, learned counsel for the Applicants submits
that the deceased was working as a cashier in the shop o
Applicants. CCTV footage showed that he had committed theft of cash
as well as goods from the shop. The deceased had admitted having
committed theft and had agreed to return the money or continue to
work in the shop till payment of money. She submits that the suicide
note as well as the other material on record does not indicate that the
Applicants had in any manner instigated the deceased-Raghuv
Megha 2/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
Acharya to commit suicide. She therefore contends that the allegation
in the FIR and the other material on record do not disclose offence
under Section 306 of the IPC. She has relied upon the decision of
Mohit Singhal and Anr. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and Ors
SCC 417.
4. Per contra, Mr. J.P. Yagnik, learned APP and Mr. Sa
Shah, learned learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submit th
allegations in the suicide note prima facie prove that the Applicants ha
levelled allegations of theft, due to which the deceased was
disturbed state of mind. It is submitted that the material on record
prima facie shows the involvement of the Applicants in the said crime.
Even otherwise the issue whether the offence under Section 306 of the
IPC is made out or not can be decided only in the course of the trial.
5. We have perused the records and considered the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective partie
6. The only question for our consideration is whether the FIR
as well as other material on record discloses that the Applicants have
Megha 3/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
abetted suicide of Raghuvir Acharya.
7. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a
cashier in the shop of the Applicants. He committed suicide during the
intervening night of 08/07/2017 and 09/07/2017. Respondent No.2,
son of the deceased lodged the FIR alleging that he had come across
suicide notes dated 07/06/2016, 12/06/2017, 18/06/2017,
02/07/2017, 07/06/2017 and 08/07/2017 in the handwriting of his
father. The said notes indicated that (i) Applicants used to abuse, insu
and assault the deceased; (ii) They had levelled false charges of theft
against him; (iii) They had taken forcible writing from him that he
would not leave the job and threatened to send him to jail; (iv) They
had taken the laptop, calculator and handbag of the deceased and the
deceased was put under constant mental pressure; and (v) That the
deceased was not paid the salary in time. It is contended that said
Raghuvir Acharya committed suicide due to the harassment caused by
the Applicants. Hence, the allegation of abetment.
8. It may be mentioned that, the term ‘abetment’ as defined
under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, reads thus :-
Megha 4/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
107. 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 willful
misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.”
9. In the case of
Mariano Anto Bruno Vs. The Inspector o
Police, AIR 2022 SC 4994 the Hon’ble Apex court has observed thus :-
“24. While analyzing the provisions of Section 306 IPC along with
the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC, a two-Judge
Bench of this Court in Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and
Another [2021 SCC OnLine SC 873], has observed as under:-
“13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as
a person committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law
but an attempt to suicide is considered to be an offence
under Section 309 IPC. The abetment of suicide by anybody
Megha 5/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. It would
relevant to set out Section 306 of the IPC which reads as
under :-
“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.”
14. Though, the IPC does not define the word ‘Suicide’ but
the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is ‘self-killing’.
The word is derived from a modern latin word suicidium’ ,
‘sui’ means ‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’ means killing’. Thus, the
word suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. In other words,
act of death must be committed by the deceased himself,
irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the
object of killing himself.
15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal
offence and prescribes punishment for the same.
16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’
is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something.
This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State
Chhattisgarh [(2010) 1 SCC 707] has defined the wo
‘instigate’ as under:-
“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do an act.”
17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-
relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly
by this Court. In the case of S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan and Anr [(2010) 12 SCC 190], it was observed as
under:-
“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
Megha 6/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme 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.”
25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid
out in M. Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police
[(2019) 3 SCC 315] which are as under: -
“The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 I.P.C. 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, accused cannot be convicted under
Section 306 I.P.C.”
26. In order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the stat
of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard t
determining the culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge
bench of this Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana
[(2019) 17 SCC 301] observed as under:-
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of
Megha 7/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
incitement to the commission of suicide. It could
hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of
abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving
multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would
be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/
s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the
case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the
deceased by another person would not suffice unless
there be such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide; and such an
offending action ought to be proximate to the time of
occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the
commission of suicide by another or not, could only
be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each
case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another; the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the
act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained
and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-
referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If th
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.
Megha 8/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
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 b
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.”
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
36. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be cle
mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direc
act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other optio
and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to pu
deceased into such a position that he commits suicide.
prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt th
deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted
commission of suicide of the deceased.”
10. In Mohit Singhal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that to attract the first clause of Section 107, there must be
instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cau
deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must b
Megha 9/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
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, as noted above, the deceased
working as a cashier in the shop of the Applicants. The statements of
the other employees working in the said shop, recorded in the course o
the investigation, reveal that the deceased had committed theft of cas
and goods from the shop. The statements do not indicate that the
Applicants herein had abused or assaulted the deceased in any manne
On the contrary, the statement of Dr. Kiran Dikshit Shandilya indicates
that the deceased was suffering from depression and was h
suicidal thoughts. The allegations in the suicide note even if accepted
as true and correct, do not indicate that the Applicants had directly or
indirectly incited, instigated or aided commission of the suicide. Thus,
the allegations lack the very element of abetment, which is an essentia
ingredient of offence under Section 306 of the IPC. In such
circumstances, compelling the Applicants to face trial would
abuse of the process of court.
Megha 10/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
12. Hence, in our considered view the case is squarely covered
by illustration Nos.(1) and (3) in the case of State of Haryana and Ors
vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604 . In the result, the
application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). FIR No.238 of
2017 registered with M.H.B. Colony Police Station, Borivali, Mumbai,
for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 of the IPC, stand
quashed.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
Megha 11/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1416 OF 2019
1. Anirudh Arun Bhandarkar
Age: 26 years
Occupation : Student as well as
partner in Bhandarkar General
Stores.
2. Supriya Arun Bhandarkar
Age: 51 years
Occupation : Housewife as well
as partner in Bhandarkar General
Stores
both the above residing at
Bhandarkar Bungalow, Next to
Police Station, Court Lane, S.V.
Road, Borivili (West), Mumbai-
...Applicants
400092.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra (at
the instance of Inspector of
Police, MHB Colony Police
Station Borivili (west)
2. Amit Raghuvir Acharya,
Age: 31 years
Occupation : Service Residing at:
El Palaza, 600-601, Opp. Citizen
Bank, IC Colony, Borivili (West),
Mumbai. ...Respondents
….
Ms Aruna Pai with Mr. N.M. Nadar for the Applicants.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Samkit Shah i/b. M/s Jaykar and partners for Respondent No.2.
Megha 1/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
th
DATED: 16 JANUARY, 2024.
JUDGMENT (Per SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.):-
1. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for th
respective parties.
2. By this application, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the
Applicants have sought to quash the FIR No.238 of 2017 registered wit
M.H.B. Colony Police Station, Borivali, Mumbai, for the offenc
punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 of the IPC.
3. Ms Aruna Pai, learned counsel for the Applicants submits
that the deceased was working as a cashier in the shop o
Applicants. CCTV footage showed that he had committed theft of cash
as well as goods from the shop. The deceased had admitted having
committed theft and had agreed to return the money or continue to
work in the shop till payment of money. She submits that the suicide
note as well as the other material on record does not indicate that the
Applicants had in any manner instigated the deceased-Raghuv
Megha 2/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
Acharya to commit suicide. She therefore contends that the allegation
in the FIR and the other material on record do not disclose offence
under Section 306 of the IPC. She has relied upon the decision of
Mohit Singhal and Anr. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and Ors
SCC 417.
4. Per contra, Mr. J.P. Yagnik, learned APP and Mr. Sa
Shah, learned learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submit th
allegations in the suicide note prima facie prove that the Applicants ha
levelled allegations of theft, due to which the deceased was
disturbed state of mind. It is submitted that the material on record
prima facie shows the involvement of the Applicants in the said crime.
Even otherwise the issue whether the offence under Section 306 of the
IPC is made out or not can be decided only in the course of the trial.
5. We have perused the records and considered the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective partie
6. The only question for our consideration is whether the FIR
as well as other material on record discloses that the Applicants have
Megha 3/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
abetted suicide of Raghuvir Acharya.
7. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a
cashier in the shop of the Applicants. He committed suicide during the
intervening night of 08/07/2017 and 09/07/2017. Respondent No.2,
son of the deceased lodged the FIR alleging that he had come across
suicide notes dated 07/06/2016, 12/06/2017, 18/06/2017,
02/07/2017, 07/06/2017 and 08/07/2017 in the handwriting of his
father. The said notes indicated that (i) Applicants used to abuse, insu
and assault the deceased; (ii) They had levelled false charges of theft
against him; (iii) They had taken forcible writing from him that he
would not leave the job and threatened to send him to jail; (iv) They
had taken the laptop, calculator and handbag of the deceased and the
deceased was put under constant mental pressure; and (v) That the
deceased was not paid the salary in time. It is contended that said
Raghuvir Acharya committed suicide due to the harassment caused by
the Applicants. Hence, the allegation of abetment.
8. It may be mentioned that, the term ‘abetment’ as defined
under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, reads thus :-
Megha 4/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
107. 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 willful
misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.”
9. In the case of
Mariano Anto Bruno Vs. The Inspector o
Police, AIR 2022 SC 4994 the Hon’ble Apex court has observed thus :-
“24. While analyzing the provisions of Section 306 IPC along with
the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC, a two-Judge
Bench of this Court in Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and
Another [2021 SCC OnLine SC 873], has observed as under:-
“13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as
a person committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law
but an attempt to suicide is considered to be an offence
under Section 309 IPC. The abetment of suicide by anybody
Megha 5/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. It would
relevant to set out Section 306 of the IPC which reads as
under :-
“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.”
14. Though, the IPC does not define the word ‘Suicide’ but
the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is ‘self-killing’.
The word is derived from a modern latin word suicidium’ ,
‘sui’ means ‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’ means killing’. Thus, the
word suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. In other words,
act of death must be committed by the deceased himself,
irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the
object of killing himself.
15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal
offence and prescribes punishment for the same.
16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’
is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something.
This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State
Chhattisgarh [(2010) 1 SCC 707] has defined the wo
‘instigate’ as under:-
“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do an act.”
17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-
relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly
by this Court. In the case of S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan and Anr [(2010) 12 SCC 190], it was observed as
under:-
“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
Megha 6/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme 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.”
25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid
out in M. Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police
[(2019) 3 SCC 315] which are as under: -
“The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 I.P.C. 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, accused cannot be convicted under
Section 306 I.P.C.”
26. In order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the stat
of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard t
determining the culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge
bench of this Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana
[(2019) 17 SCC 301] observed as under:-
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of
Megha 7/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
incitement to the commission of suicide. It could
hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of
abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving
multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would
be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/
s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the
case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the
deceased by another person would not suffice unless
there be such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide; and such an
offending action ought to be proximate to the time of
occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the
commission of suicide by another or not, could only
be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each
case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another; the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the
act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained
and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-
referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If th
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.
Megha 8/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
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 b
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.”
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
36. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be cle
mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direc
act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other optio
and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to pu
deceased into such a position that he commits suicide.
prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt th
deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted
commission of suicide of the deceased.”
10. In Mohit Singhal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that to attract the first clause of Section 107, there must be
instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cau
deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must b
Megha 9/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
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, as noted above, the deceased
working as a cashier in the shop of the Applicants. The statements of
the other employees working in the said shop, recorded in the course o
the investigation, reveal that the deceased had committed theft of cas
and goods from the shop. The statements do not indicate that the
Applicants herein had abused or assaulted the deceased in any manne
On the contrary, the statement of Dr. Kiran Dikshit Shandilya indicates
that the deceased was suffering from depression and was h
suicidal thoughts. The allegations in the suicide note even if accepted
as true and correct, do not indicate that the Applicants had directly or
indirectly incited, instigated or aided commission of the suicide. Thus,
the allegations lack the very element of abetment, which is an essentia
ingredient of offence under Section 306 of the IPC. In such
circumstances, compelling the Applicants to face trial would
abuse of the process of court.
Megha 10/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::
23_apl_1416_2019.doc
12. Hence, in our considered view the case is squarely covered
by illustration Nos.(1) and (3) in the case of State of Haryana and Ors
vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604 . In the result, the
application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). FIR No.238 of
2017 registered with M.H.B. Colony Police Station, Borivali, Mumbai,
for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 of the IPC, stand
quashed.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
Megha 11/11
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:35:30 :::