High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
*7* 25appln1751o24distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found tohave the ingredients to charge an offence ofabetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in howdifferent individuals respond and react underpressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a fewrunaway and certain people crumble and at timestake the extreme step of suicide. To put the blameon the pressure imposed and the person responsiblefor it, at all times, without something more toclearly discern an intention, would not be theproper application of the penal provisions underSection 306.”7.Taking into consideration the legal position as wellas the factual position and the observations made by this Court inCriminal Application No.1166/2024 (supra) to which one of us(Smt.Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) was a party, we are of the opinionthat even prima facie also the ingredients of Section 306 of theIndian Penal Code will not get attracted to the material collectedin the charge-sheet. The consent by the present applicants to thesale deed will not play much importance as in order to prove theabetment, a positive act on the part of the present applicants inaiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide,has to be proved prima facie. Therefore, we take this to be a fitcase where we should exercise our inherent powers underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We, therefore,pass the following order:- *8* 25appln1751o24ORDER(I)The Application stands allowed.(II)The proceedings in R.C.C. No.111/2025 pending beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded, arising out ofthe FIR vide Crime No.38/2024 registered with BhagyanagarPolice Station, Nanded, on 06.02.2024 for the offencespunishable under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, stand quashed and set aside as against thepresent applicants (Nagmani Maroti Ansapure and ShankarMaroti Ansapure). kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) (SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
Arguments
*1* 25appln1751o24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1751 OF 20241.Nagmani Maroti AnsapureAge-64 years, Occupation-Homemaker,R/o. Yelegaon, Tq. Ardhapur,Dist.Nanded.2.Shankar Maroti Ansapure,Age-45 years, Occupation-Service,R/o. Yelegaon, Tq. Ardhapur, Dist.Nanded.At present RH-4, Chinchwad, Vidyavihar Society, Sambhajinagar,Pune-19....APPLICANTS- VERSUS -1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Officer Incharge,Police Station Bhagyanagar, Nanded,Dist.Nanded.2.Kirti Raghunath Tate,Age-42 years, Occupation-Teacher,R/o. Sambhajinagar-2, Taroda Bk.,Nanded, Dist.Nanded....RESPONDENTS ...Shri Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate h/f Ms.Lomte AshwiniAnnasaheb, Advocate for the Applicants.Shri S.A. Gaikwad, APP for Respondent No.1/State.Shri Borulkar Avinash R., Advocate for Respondent No.2.... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI& SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ. DATE : 21 August 2025 *2* 25appln1751o24Per Court :-The present application has been filed initially forquashing the FIR vide Crime No.38/2024 registered withBhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded, on 06.02.2024 and later on,by way of amendment for quashing the proceedings in RCCNo.111/2025 pending before the learned JMFC, Nanded, for theoffences punishable under Sections 306, 506 and 34 of the IndianPenal Code.2.Heard the learned advocate for the applicants, thelearned APP for respondent No.1/ State and the learned advocatefor respondent No.2.3.The learned advocate for the applicants submittedthat this Court in Criminal Application No.1166/2024 decided on12.06.2025 has quashed the proceedings against the co-accusedPramod Maruti Ansapure and Vaishali Pramod Ansapure. Heplaces on record the copy of the said order. He submits that therole of the present applicants is similar. Even if the contents ofthe charge-sheet are taken as it is, yet there was no proximity inthe alleged act and actual commission of suicide. *3* 25appln1751o244.Per contra, the learned APP for respondent No.1/State and the learned advocate for respondent No.2 stronglyopposed the application and submitted that the entire evidence ison record. The informant is the widow of the deceasedRaghunath Bhujang Tate. The deceased had purchasedimmovable property bearing plot No.6 in Gat No.169 at villageTaroda Khurd. The present applicant Nos.1 and 2 were theconsenting parties to the sale deed and it was then stated that thesaid plot was self-acquired plot of the father of co-accusedPramod Maruti Ansapure. After the sale deed, the presentapplicants along with co-accused started saying that they haveshare in the property and, therefore, the property should bereturned to them. The civil suit was also filed. The deceased hadinformed the informant as to what happened when he was calledby the co-accused Pramod and Vaishali and thereafter, Raghunathhad committed suicide on 05.02.2024. He had given message tothe mobile phone of his son regarding the same. Therefore, allthese facts would be considered by the Trial Court. Inspite ofbeing consenting parties to the sale deed, the present applicantswere demanding the amount of Rs.40 lac from the deceased. *4* 25appln1751o245.Here, it is to be noted that this Court has consideredall aspects and the evidence that has been collected in the matterwhile deciding Criminal Application No.1166/2024 (supra).Elaborate reasons have been given together with legal positionthat is governing the offence under Section 306 of the IndianPenal Code. Important point to be noted is that the co-accusedPramod appears to have filed Regular Civil Suit No.109/2022asserting his rights. The informant has stated that she had gonealong with her husband on 08.09.2023 as called by the co-accused Pramod and Vaishali. It has been then observed by usthat on 08.09.2023 except the insistence for return of plot orgiving the amount of Rs.40 lac, there was no other talk. Then,another incident is stated to have taken place somewhere inJanuary, 2024, that too involving the co-accused Pramod. It isthen stated that when Raghunath was returning from college, hewas obstructed by the present applicants as well as the co-accused and some gundas and then again same demand wasmade and the alleged threat was given. It can be seen that theincident was not then reported by Raghunath to police.Raghunath committed suicide on 05.02.2024. By taking note ofthe decision in Prakash and others vs. The State of Maharashtra *5* 25appln1751o24and others, (2024) INSC 1020, it has been observed that there isno proximity between the deceased sending message on mobilephone of his son and committing suicide or even it can be statedthat there was no proximity between the alleged incidentsomewhere in January, 2024 and the suicide on 05.02.2024. Ithas then been stated that the message to the son cannot beconsidered or would not be permissible under Section 32(1) ofthe Indian Evidence Act taking into consideration the proximity.6.We would also like to rely on the recent decision ofthe Honourable Supreme Court in Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs.The State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185/2024 decided on 18.08.2025 wherein, earlier decisions ofthe Honourable Supreme Court have been considered and thefollowing observations have been made in paragraph Nos.21, 22,23 and 24:-“21.It was held that abetment involves the mentalprocess of instigating a person or intentionallyaiding a person in doing of a thing and without apositive act on the part of the accused, in aiding orinstigating or abetting the deceased to commitsuicide, a conviction cannot be sustained.22. What comes out essentially from the variousdecisions herein before cited is that, even if there isallegation of constant harassment, continued over along period; to bring in the ingredients of Section *6* 25appln1751o24306 read with Section 107, still there has to be aproximate prior act to clearly find that the suicidewas the direct consequence of such continuousharassment, the last proximate incident havingfinally driven the subject to the extreme act oftaking one’s life. Figuratively, ‘the straw that brokethe camel’s back’; that final event, in a series, thatoccasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in theunpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victimto that extreme act, often depends on individualpredilections; but whether it is goaded, definitivelyand demonstrably, by a particular act of another, isthe test to find mens rea. Merely because thevictim was continuously harassed and at one point,he or she succumbed to the extreme act of takinghis life cannot by itself result in finding a positiveinstigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannotbe gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind ofthe victim.23. The victim may have felt that there was noalternative or option, but to take his life, because ofwhat another person did or said; which cannot leadto a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment onthat other person. What constitutes mens rea is theintention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator asdiscernible from the conscious acts or words andthe attendant circumstances, which in allprobability could lead to such an end. The realintention of the accused and whether he intendedby his action to at least possibly drive the victim tosuicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goadingthe victim to suicide occur in the mind of theaccused or whether it can be inferred from the factsand circumstances arising in the case, as the truetest of mens rea would depend on the facts of eachcase. The social status, the community setting, therelationship between the parties and other myriadfactors would distinguish one case from another.However harsh or severe the harassment, unlessthere is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea,to drive another person to suicidal death, therecannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go,kill yourself”; often a rustic expression against