Kalpesh Prakashrao Kale And Another v. The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Rajapeth Amravati Dist.Amravati And Another
2025:BHC-NAG:5199-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 03 OF 2023 1.
Kalpesh Prakashrao Kale, Aged about 30 years, Occupation :
Service, R/o. Ganpati Nagar, Amravati.
2.
Asha W/o. Dilip Kale, Aged about 38 years, Occupation :
Housewife, R/o. Kiran Nagar No.2, Amravati.
.... APPLICANTS.
// VERSUS // 1.
State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Rajapeth, Amravati, District : Amravati.
2.
Rajendra Gajanan Pingale, Aged about 54 years, Occu. :
Laburer, R/o. Juni Vasti, Badnera, Tah. and District :
Amravati.
.... RESPONDENTS .
___________________________________________________________________ Shri S.B.Gandhe, Advocate for Applicants.
Shri Amit Chutke, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State. Shri P.K. Dahat, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________ CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : MAY 07, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Anil S. Kilor, J.) 1.
Heard.
2.
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3.
By the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prayer is made to quash and set aside the Charge Sheet arising out of First Information Report/Crime No.854 of 2022 dated 04/10/2022, registered with Police Station, Rajapeth, Amravati for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4.
If the allegations in the report are perused, it is evident that the deceased committed suicide on 07/09/2022, whereas, the report came to be lodged on 04/10/2022. No explanation is offered for such delay. No suicide note was found. But as per the report lodged by the father of the deceased, it is stated that there was love relation between the applicant No.1 and the deceased and since he refused to marry her, she committed suicide by consuming poison. 5.
In light of the above referred allegations, it would be beneficial to reiterate the law as regards abetment to commit suicide as discussed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said matter has observed thus :
50. More recently in M Arjunan v. State (represented by its Inspector of Police) (2019) 3 SCC 315, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice R. Banumathi, elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC in the following observations : "7. 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 IPC."
51. Similarly, in another recent judgment of this Court in Ude Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana AIR 2019 SC 4570, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, 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 the following terms : "38. 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.
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.
39. 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 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 selfrespect 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."
Similarly, in Rajesh v. State of Haryana AIR 2019 SC 478, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice L. Nageswara Rao, held as follows :
9. 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 IPC."
In a recent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR OnLine 2020 SC 759, a three judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Hrishikesh Roy, held thus :
"15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 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 appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased."
6.
In the teeth of the above referred observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and considering the allegations made in the FIR, we are of the opinion that there are no allegations as regard instigation, aiding or abetting the offence. Furthermore, there is nothing to prima facie show that there was any such intention of the applicant to instigate or to aid the deceased in commission of the alleged offence. It is also evident that the prerequisites to attract the abetment to commit suicide are missing. In addition to this, intention and motive is also necessary.
7.
In the present matter, even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken at its face value, it is evident that the prerequisites are absent and as such no offence, as alleged, would constitute against the applicants. 8.
Accordingly, we pass the following order :
i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
ii) Charge Sheet arising out of First Information Report/Crime No.854 of 2022 dated 04/10/2022, registered with Police Station, Rajapeth, Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J) (ANIL S. KILOR, J) RRaut..