Sangeetaben Rameshbhai Kharpadiya & Ors. vs Vs State Of Gujarat & Anr.

Divyesh A. Joshi, J

Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being C.R. No.I-123 of 2017 registered before the Bhilad Police Station at Valsad for the offence punishable under section 306 read with Section 114 of the IPC.

The crux of the allegations made in the FIR is that there was a love affair between the son of the complainant-Niteshbhai and the daughter of the accused No.1-Bhanuben which was disliked by the accused persons and, therefore, time and again, they scolded and threatened the son of the complainant to discontinue the relationship with Bhanuben, and on the fateful day, all the accused persons beaten the son of the complainant and detained him in the house of the complainant, and due to such incessant torture, harassment and insulting treatment meted out to him in the presence of the villagers by the accused persons, the son of the complainant, strangulated himself with the rope in his house, and thereby all the accused persons have abetted the deceased to commit suicide and, hence, the impugned FIR.

Learned senior advocate Mr. T. M. Barot appearing for the applicants submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of abetment are spelt out. According to the learned senior advocate, giving threat or scolding the deceased, as alleged, to discontinue the relationship with the daughter of the accused No.1 by itself would not amount to abetment or mental cruelty. He further submits that thee was a love affair between the son of the complainant and the daughter of the applicant No.1, namely, Bhanuben. The applicants Nos.2 and 3 are the uncle and aunt of Bhanuben. Learned senior advocate Mr. Barot also submits that the deceased was a fisherman who had taken a huge sum in advance from the boat owners including one Navin Jasu Pagi for carrying out fishing activities and, therefore, he was under immense pressure and trauma to repay the said borrowed amount. He further submits that few days prior to the date of the incident, some of the creditors went to the house of the deceased and demanded the amount lent by them to the deceased and, thereafter, as the deceased failed to repay the said amount, the said boat owners beaten the deceased, and this might be the real cause which compelled the deceased to take such an extreme step to end his life. Moreover, as per the FIR, the deceased was in deep love with Bhanuben and wanted to marry her despite the fact that Bhanuben already got engaged with someone else, and if the deceased took the extreme step due to such reason, then the same cannot be, in any manner, termed as an abetment of suicide at the end of the applicants.

Learned senior advocate Mr. Barot submits that as per the FIR the alleged incident took place after two hours from the applicants leaving the house of the complainant and, therefore, there is no proximate cause between the alleged acts of the applicants and the action taken by the deceased of committing suicide. Thus, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of abetment within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC are completely absent. He further submits that it is a settled position of law that the offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has been abetted. The words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. Learned senior advocate Mr. Barot also submits that nowhere in the entire body of the complaint, there is a whisper to the effect that immediately prior to the alleged incident, the applicants were indulged into such an act, which ultimately left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. He further submits that none of the acts of the applicants, by any stretch of imagination, could be considered as abetment of suicide as per the settled proposition of law. To bolster his submissions, learned senior advocate Mr. Barot has relied upon the following case laws;

i) In the case of Prabhu vs. State, rep by the Inspector of Police & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 137;

ii) In the case of M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626;

iii) In the case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190;

iv) In the case of Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 873

v) In the case of Shabbir Hussain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 743;

vi) In the case of Vikas Chandra vs. State of Utttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC SC 1534;

vii) In the case of Mohit Singhal & Anr. vs. State of Uttrakhand & Ors., reported in (2024) 1 SCC 417;

In such circumstances, referred to above, learned senior advocate Mr. Barot prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed and the impugned FIR be quashed.

On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Jay Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State of Gujarat. He submits that the role of the applicant-accused is clearly spelt out from the body of the complaint. Learned APP also submits that at the time of the incident, the deceased was 23 years old who developed intimacy towards the daughter of the accused No.1 and the accused herein are against such a relationship. Therefore, the accused constantly administering threats to the deceased to disconnect his relationship with the daughter of the accused No.1, and on the fateful day, they all caught the deceased in the open market and started beating and abusing him in front of the people at large, and then dragged the deceased beating to his house. Thus, due to such an act on the part of the accused, the deceased felt insulted in front of the public and as he could not tolerate the same any more, he took such a drastic step of ending his life. Learned APP further submits that as soon as the impugned FIR was registered, the applicants approached this Court by way of filing the present application and a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice, protected the applicant by directing the Investigating Officer to continue with the investigation, but not to take any coercive steps against the applicants. Thereafter, the investigating officer proceeded with the investigation, during which period, statements of number of witnesses were recorded, and all those statements are supported the case put forward by the complainant. Under the circumstances, learned APP Mr. Mehta prays that, therefore, at this stage, the First Information Report should not be quashed and the trial should be permitted to proceed further. Hence, the present application deserved to be rejected.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether I should quash the FIR.

The following facts are not in dispute:

(i) The deceased and the daughter of the Applicant no.1-Bhanuben appears to have developed intimacy towards each other, which continued for quite some time.

(ii) Applicant no.1, being the mother, was against such relationship and often tried to persuade the deceased to put an end to such a relationship with her daughter, which on certain occasions led to the quarrel between them.

(iii) It was the abrupt quarrel that had taken place on the fateful day, which triggered the trouble.

(iv) In my view, the most important ingredient to constitute the offence of abetment, viz mens rea is missing. In the present case, there might have been serious grievances at the end of the accused persons on account of the love relationship of the daughter of the applicant No.1 with the son of the complainant which necessitated the accused persons to reprimand the deceased, but that by itself is not sufficient to infer instigation within the meaning of section 107 of IPC. It could not be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the applicants herein intended the consequences of the Act.

The law in this regard is well settled. The then Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lalitbhai Vikramchand Parekh vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., Special Criminal Application No.16032 of 2014, decided on 10th April, 2015, has exhaustively explained what would constitute abetment within the meaning of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code so as to make the person liable for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. I may quote the relevant observations as under;

“11. Abetment of suicide is made punishable by Section 306 which provides that "if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished." (emphasis supplied) The section does not define the expression" "abet", nor is the expression defined in Chapter II of the Code which deals with the general explanations". However, Chapter V of the Code incorporates an elaborate statement of "abetment". Section 107 in this Chapter defines "abetment of a thing", while Section 108 defines the expression "abettor". This is how these sections run : Section 107- Abetment of a thing "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 wilful 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

Section 108 - Abettor- "'A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor".

Explanation 1.- The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

Explanation 2.- To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.

Explanation 3.- It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, of any guilty intention or knowledge.

Explanation 4.- The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment also an offence.

Explanation 5.- It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy than the abettor should concern the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed."

As the expressions "abetment" and "abettor" have been legislatively defined, the ordinary dictionary meaning of the expressions would not be determinative of their import. It may, however, be useful to have a look at the ;dictionary meaning of the expression "abet". According to Webster, Webster's Third New International Dictionary Vol. I, the expression "abet", means to incite, encourage instigate, or countenance-now usually used disparagingly. According to Wharton, Whartone's Law Lexicon, 14th ed., "abet" means to stir up or excite, to maintain or patronize : to encourage or set on and the "abettor" is an instigator or setter on, one who promotes or procures a crime to be committed. Stroud, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th ed., has given various meanings of the expression "aid" or "abet", based on judicial pronouncements in England, in the context of different statutes. Thus, according to Hawkins, 51 L J.M.C. 78-R. v. Coney, J., "To constitute an aider or abettor, some active steps must be taken, by word or action, with intent to instigate the principal or principals. Encouragement does not, of necessity, amount to aiding and abetting. It may be intentional or unintentional. A man may unwillingly encourage another in fact by his presence, by misinterpreted gestures, or by his silence or non-interference-or he may encourage intentionally by expressions, gestures, or actions, intended to signify approval. In the latter case, he aids and abets; in the former he does not." Stroud also cites the case of Du Cros v. Lambourne, 1907 (1) K. B. 40.. in which it was held that "the owner in, and in control of, a motor car which is being driven at an improper speed by a driver who is not his servant, "aids or abets" in the offence if he (the owner) does not interfere." It is further noticed on the basis of decision in the case of Rubie v. Faulkner, 1980 (1) K.B. 571 : "For a supervisor of a learner driver to see that an unlawful act is about to be done and to fail to prevent it is he can is for him to aid and abet." It is further noticed, on the authority of the decision in the case of Callow v. Tillstone, 83 L.T. 411, that "A man does not by negligence aid and abet a person to expose unsound meat for sale." It is further noticed, on the basis of the decision in the case of Ackroyds Air Travel v. Director of Police Prosecutions, 1950 (1) All. E.R. 933 and Thomas v. Lindop, 1950 (1) All. E.R. 966, that "If a person knows all the circumstances which constitute the offence he will be guilty of aiding and abetting whether he knew that they did in fact constitute the offence or not " Stroud also quotes Lord Goddard C J. in Ferguson v. Weaving, 1951 (1) K.B 814, that "it is well know that the words 'aid and abet are apt to describe the action of a person who is present at the time of the commission of an offence and takes some part therein."

It may be useful to refer to some of the early English decisions, dealing with different ways of taking part in a felony, it was recognised that a felony may be committed by the hand of an "innocent agent" who, having no blamable intentions in that he did, incurred no criminal liability by doing it. In such a case, the man who "instigates" this agent is the real offender; his was the last mens rea that preceded the crime, though it did not cause it "immediately but mediately". "Thus, if a physician provides a poisonous draught and tells a nurse that it is the medicine to be administered to her patient, and then by her administration of it the patient is killed, the murderous physician-and not the innocent nurse-is the principal in the first degree Kel. 52 (T.A.C.)." In English Law, as it stood before the later developments, "a principal in the second degree is one by whom the actual perpetrator of the felony is aided and abetted at the very time when it is committed; for instance, a car-owner sitting beside the chauffeur who kills some one by over-fast driving, or a passenger on a clandestine joy- riding expedition which results in manslaughter 1930 (22) Cr, App. R. 70 : 144 L.T. 185, "or bigamist's second 'wife' if she knows he is committing bigamy, or even be spectators if they actively encourage such a contest even by mere applause. "But a spectator's presence at a prize-fight docs not of itself constitute sufficient encouragement to amount to an aiding and abetting 1882 (8) Q.B.D. 534." It was also recognised that a man may effectively "aid and abet" a crime and at the very moment of its perpetration, without being present at the place where it is perpetrated. "To be guilty of aiding and abetting, a person must either render effective aid to the principal offender or else must be present and acquiesce in what he is doing. Before a person can be convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of an offence, be must at least know the essential matters which constitute the offence 1951 (1) All. E.R. 412(414)." "But acquiescene sufficient to constitute the offence may be established by evidence of the accused persons motive and of his subsequent conduct 1951 (1) All. E.R. 464."

In the category of "accessory before the fact" comes a person who "procures or advises" one or more of the principals to commit the felony. This "requires from him an instigation so active that a person who is merely shown to have acted as the stakeholder for a prize-fight which ended fatally, would nut be punishable as an accessory 1875 (2) C.C.R. 147." "The fact that a crime has been committed in a manner different from the mode which the accessory had advised will not excuse him from liability for it. But a man who has councelled a crime does not become liable as accessory if. instead of any form of the crime suggested, an entirely 'different offence is committed 1936 (2) All. E.R. 813." Kenny, Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law, New ed. by J.W.C. Turner, p. 88, points out that it is not always easy to decide whether or not the crime actually committed comes within the terms of the "incitement." so as to make the inciter legally responsible for it. He further observed that the courts in some of the older cases tended to "take a strict view of the facts" and refers by illustration to the case of R. v. Saunders, Kel. 52 (T.A.C ) and Archer in 1578. referred to in Plowden.

For obvious, reasons an act of suicide is not penal, even though an unsuccessful attempt at it is punishable. Suicide takes the victim or the perpetrator outside the purview of penal consequences, even though the common law in England at one time endeavoured to deter men from this crime by the threat of degradations to be inflicted upon the "suicide's corpose", which by a natural, if unreasoning association of ideas, were often a "potent deterrent", and also by threatening the forfeiture of his goods, a "vicarious punishment" which though falling wholly upon his surviving family, was likely often to appeal strongly to his sense of affection. Thus the man who feloniously took his own life was at one time "buried in the highway", with a stake through his body; and his goods were "forfeited". The burial of suicides lost its gruesome aspect in 1824 when the original mode was replaced by the practice of burial "between the hours of nine and twelve at night", without any service. In 1870, the confiscation of the goods of suicides was put to an end in the general abolition of forfeitures for felony. And in 1882, the statute removed every penalty, except the purely ecclesiastical one that the interment must not be solemnised by a burial service in the full ordinary Anglican form, Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law, New ed. by J.W.C.,, Turner, p. 138.

Halsbury, in Halsbury's Law of England, 4th -ed. Paras 42 to 44 notices some of the English decisions in the matter of classification of offence and complicity in the crime. Thus, a person who '"assists the perpetrator at the time of its commission, or if he assists or encourages the perpetrator before its commission, was held liable 1970 (2) Q.B. 54." According to R.V. Gregory (1867) L.R.I. C.C.R. 77 "any person who aids, counsel or procures the commission of an offence, whether an offence at common law or by statute, and whether indictable or summary, is liable to be tried and punished as a principal offender." Mere presence at the commission of the crime is not enough to create criminal liability, nor is it enough that a person is present with a secret intention to assist the principal should assistance be required. Some encouragement or assistance must have been given to the principal either before or at the time of the commission of the crime with the intention of furthering its commission. Presence without more may, however, afford some evidence of aid and encouragement. It is an indictable offence at common law for a person to incite or solicit another to commit an offence. For an incitement to be complete, there must be some form of actual communication with a person whom it is intended to incite, where, however, a communication is sent with a view to incite, but does not reach the intended recipient the sender may be guilty of an attempt to incite. Incitement is complete though the mind of the person incited is unaffected and notwithstanding that person incited intends to inform on the inciter ; but there can be no incitement unless one person seeks to persuade or encourage another Halsbury's Laws of England, Paras 42 to 44.

It may be useful to notice some of the Indian decisions on the question of abetment. Among the early cases of abetment of suicide arose out of unfortunate incidents of Sati, which was common in India, at one time. A person who induced the woman to return to the pyre after she had once retired from it, and immolated herself, was held to have abetted suicide 1863 (1) R.L.P.J. 174. Where a women prepared to commit suicide in the presence of certain persons who followed her to the pyre, stood by her and one of them told the women to say 'Ram Ram' and "She would became sati", the facts were held sufficient to prove the active connivance of these persons and to justify the inference that they had engaged with her in a conspiracy to commit suicide 1871 (3) N.W.P. 316; (1933) A.L.J.R. 7. Where the accused prepared the funeral pyre, placed the victim's husband's body over it, and did not use any force to prevent her from sitting on the pyre and supplied her with ghee which she poured over the pyre were found guilty of abetment of suicide. Where a Hindu women was burnt in the act of becoming sati, those who assisted her in taking off her ornaments, supervised the cutting of her nails and the dying of her feet, prepared the pyre on which she sat herself and put the corpse upon the pyre, were all held guilty of abetment of suicide. The defence that the abettors were in fact "expecting a miracle and did not anticipate that the pyre would be ignited by human agency was rejected, 1928 (8) Pat. 74. Similarly, where the accused, who were members of a crowd, who had joined the funeral procession from the house of the victim to the cremation ground, and were shouting "Sati Mata Ki Jai" it was held that all those persons, who joined the procession were aiding the widow in becoming sati and were guilty of an offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1958 Cr. L J. 967, 1958 Raj. 143.

Some later decisions arising out of other instances of instigation throw further light on the question. In the case of Parimal Chatterjee and others A.l.R 1932 Cal. 760, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed that the word "instigate" literally means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. A person may however not only instigate another, but he may co -operate with him and his Co-operation - may consist of a conjoint action and that would amount to abetment. In the case of State of Bihar v. Ranen Nath and other A.I.R. 1958 Patna 259, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court was construing Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act which uses the expressions Instigation and incitement' and observed that the words "should be read to signify something deeper than a mere asking of a person to do a particular act. There must be something in the nature of solicitation to constitute instigation or incitement" and it was held that the words seem to convey the meaning "to goad or urge forward or to provoke or encourage the doing of an act." It was further observed that what acts should amount to instigation or incitement within the meaning of that section will depend upon the "particular facts of each case", and that in some circumstances a "throw of a finger" or "a mere turning of the eye' may give rise to an inference of either "incitement or instigation", and yet in others even "strong words, expressly used, may not mean that the person using them was stimulating or suggesting to anyone to do a particular act." The court expressed the view that there must be something "tangible" in evidence to show that the persons responsible for such action were "deliberately trying to stir up other persons to bring about a certain object". According to a division bench of the Calcutta High Court, a person abets the doing of a thing when he or she, inter alia. "instigates any person to do that thing." The other modes of abetment, besides instigation, are "conspiracy and intentional aid". The word "instigation" literally means "to goad or urge forward to do an act." "It is something more than co- operation." In the case of Shri Ram and another, 1975 (2) S.C.R. 622, the Supreme Court observed that in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime. "Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abetter is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107". A person may, for example, "invite another casually or for a friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee". But unless the invitation was extended "with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder", the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor "happens to facilitate the commission of the crime". "Intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107".

In case of suicide how the evidence is required to be appreciated has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of judgments. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 AIR(SC) 512, after considering various earlier judgments in para 15 observed that, "15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. 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 their 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."

"16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of 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."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 has reiterated the legal position as regards Section 306 IPC which is long settled in para 12 and 13. Para 12 and 13 reads thus :

"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigation 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 is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.

In State of W. B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive or ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belongs and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

In Gcngula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., (2010) 1 SCC 750 the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 306 IPC held that:

"Abetment involves a 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 to instigate or aid in committing suicide, there cannot be any conviction. It was further held that to attract Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens tea to commit the offence."

In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh., (2001) 9 SCC 618. the Supreme Court held that "Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

In Sanju alias Sanjay v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371. the deceased committed suicide on 27.7.1998. whereas, the alleged quarrel had taken place on 25.7.1998 when it was alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. The Supreme Court in the said circumstances held that the fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27.7.1998 would itself clearly point out that it was not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25.7.1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die.

Taking note of various earlier judgments, in M. Mohan u. State Represented the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626. the Supreme Court held that "Abetment involves mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. There should be clear mens rea to commit offence under Section 306. It requires commission of direct or active act by accused which led deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and such act must be intended to push victim into a position that he commits suicide."

On a close reading of the above provisions of the IPC, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions, it is apparent that in a case under Section 306 IPC, there should be clear mens-rea to commit the offence under this Section and there should be direct or active act by the accused, which led the deceased to commit suicide, that is to say that there must be some evidence of "instigation", "cooperation" or "initial assistance" by the accused to commit suicide by the victim/deceased.

In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 the Supreme Court observed vide Para 7 that:

"7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

It was a proposition relating to criminal prosecution.

In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628. the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the allegations were irrelevant and baseless and observed that the High Court was in error in not quashing the proceedings.

Accepting the allegations made against the applicants by the prosecution as it is, they do not constitute the offence of abetment. I am conscious of the fact that five persons of one family lost their lives on account of drastic step taken by them for no reason. It is very difficult to understand the mental state of mind of such persons who take an extreme step of putting an end to their life voluntarily by committing suicide.

According to the World Federation for Mental Health (WFMH), a number of countries have established national suicide prevention plans or strategies. Their principles and action steps represent good sources for developing specific policy recommendations to present to governmental and legislative leaders. Common elements of these plans and strategies include:

- Campaigns to increase public awareness of suicide as a preventable problem, to develop broad based support for prevention efforts, and to reduce stigma;

- Community development to support creation and implementation of suicide prevention programs;

- Improved access to services to suicidal people and their loved ones, and improved service delivery efforts through development of guidelines and linkages;

- Media education to improve reporting and portrayals of suicide in the media;

- Training for caregivers to improve recognition of at-risk behaviour and delivery of effective treatments;

- Incorporation of licensing standards for professional caregivers;

- Development and promotion of effective clinical and professional practices;

- Means restriction initiatives to reduce access to lethal means and methods of self harm;

- Research and evaluation to promote and support research, improve surveillance systems, and evaluate the effectiveness of new or existing suicide prevention interventions.

In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no material on record, sufficient for continuing the criminal prosecution against the applicants. The factual position clearly shows that the criminal proceedings pending against the applicants is nothing, but a sheer abuse of the process of law, which should be quashed by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Mere vague allegations of harassment by themselves would not amount to abetement of the offence of commission of suicide. Something more is required under Section 107 of the IPC. These requisite ingredients are missing in this case.

Commission of suicide in the State is at rampage. Everyday, cases are reported. Sometimes, it could be a student or an estranged wife or a frustrated or mentally disturbed husband or it could be a terminally ill person fed-up with the ailment etc. Life is precious and should not be allowed to be lost in this manner. The State owes an obligation to see that its subjects do not take the extreme step of committing suicide for any reason. In such circumstances, the State Government should also seriously consider evolving some action plan or strategies as referred to above.”

Let me now look into the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. The Supreme Court, in the case of M. Mohan (supra), observed in paras-45 and 46, as under;

"45. 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 cannot be sustained.

The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."

In Shabbir Hussain (supra), the husband committed suicide on account of her wife left her matrimonial home following the matrimonial disputes between herself and her deceased-husband. The Supreme Court, while upholding the decision of the High Court, has very briefly explained the position of law in such type of matters. Relevant observations from Para-5 onwards of the said judgment read thus;

“5. Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC [Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707].

Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)(2009) 16 SCC 605].

In the instant case, the allegations against Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 is that they harassed the deceased. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment. The High court did not commit any error in allowing the Criminal Revision.”

In Vikas Chandra (supra), the Supreme Court took the view in the facts of that case that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The mens rea on the part of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC. I may quote the relevant observations hereunder:

“19. In the decision in M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu10, this Court considered Section 306, IPC and its co-relation with Section 107, IPC after referring to the decisions in M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). After analysing the provisions under Section 306, IPC with reference to ‘abetment’, as defined under Section 107, IPC and the decisions in M. Mohan’s case (supra), Madan Mohan Singh’s case (supra) and Chitresh Kumar Chopra’s case (supra) it was held that “in order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC,…” Thus, in view of the decision, it is clear that what matters in deciding the question whether there is ground for proceeding against a particular person and to issue summons to him to face the trial for the offence under Section 306, IPC is whether the complaint and the materials collected during the inquiry/investigation prima facie disclose mens rea on the part of the accused to bring about suicide of the victim. This position of law and condition Nos. 1 and 2 in Smt. Nagawwa’s case (supra), extracted in paragraph 17 above, are to be borne in mind while considering the question whether a prima facie case of ‘abetment of suicide’ is made out against the respondent No.2. Obviously, the High Court held it in the negative under the impugned judgment. As per the complainant, who was examined before the learned Magistrate in the inquiry, the respondent No.2 by uttering the instigative words on 12.10.2004 (extracted hereinbefore) abetted his father to commit suicide. However, the impugned judgment would reveal that the High Court upon careful perusal of the suicide note found conspicuous absence of any reference, either explicitly or implicitly, in the suicide note regarding any such occurrence, as alleged by the complainant, on 12.10.2004 or anything suggesting that the respondent No.2 was conscious of the fact that the victim was bent upon to commit suicide in case of non- disbursement of salary and despite such knowledge he desisted disbursal of salary and instigated the victim to commit suicide.”

In Geo Varghese (supra), the Supreme Court, after referring to the decision in S.S. Cheena (supra), has held as under;

“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., 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 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.”

In Prabhu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under;

“In a recent judgment of this Court in Kamalakar vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of 2011 [decided on 12.10.2023], one of us (Vikram Nath J.) explained the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. The Court has held as follows:

"8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to act) which directly resulted in the person's suicide.

8.3. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, this Court has analysed different meanings of “instigation”. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein:

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan v. State, as under:

“43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment.

The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect.

Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

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 cannot be sustained.

The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” 8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal in the following paragraphs:

“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. 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.

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.” 8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the instant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, there seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord between the deceased and the appellant and her subsequent death by burning herself. The appellant has not committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased.”

Thus, according to me, the ratio laid down in the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the applicants are broadly applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

Lastly, I may refer to and rely on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. Velmurugan and another, reported in A.I.R. 2011 Supreme Court 1238, in paras 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 50, which read as under:

"43. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Another (1994) 1 SCC 73 (AIR 1994 SC 1418), this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide as hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (16) SCC 605, had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the HC- NIC Page 33 of 35 Created On Thu Aug 17 02:38:27 IST 2017 latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self- esteem and self-respect. Therefore,it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

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 cannot be sustained.

The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.

In V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and Others (2010) 10 SCC 361, this court has held that when prima facie no case is made out against the accused, then the High Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.PC and quashed the complaint.

Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because of hanging. The deceased was undoubtedly HC-NIC Page 34 of 35 Created On Thu Aug 17 02:38:27 IST 2017 hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In a joint family, instances of this kind are not very uncommon. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had taken place in the family. But the question remains to be answered is whether the appellants can be connected with that unfortunate incident in any manner?"

In the overall view of the matter, I am not convinced with the case put up by the prosecution against the applicants. In the result, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The first information report being C.R. No.I-123 of 2017 registered before the Bhilad Police Station at Valsad is hereby ordered to be quashed. All consequential proceedings arising from the same also stands terminated. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.