High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2641 of 2022 Biswajeet Manda andal …. Petitioner Mr. S. K. Mishra ishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha a ha and another …. Opp. Parties Op Smt. Siva Mohanty, hanty, Addl. P.P. CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 09.07.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. By means eans of application, the Petitioner seeks in eeks indulgence of this Court praying raying to quash the proceedings in GR Cas R Case No.771 of 2021 pursuant to nt to the Malkangiri PS Case No.382 of 2 2 of 2021 pending before the learned arned SDJM, Malkangiri. 2. The backg
Facts
background facts of the case are that one R one Ratan Kumar Biswas lodged a w ed a written report before the IIC, Malkang alkangiri, alleging that his daughter ughter, Anuradha Biswas, aged 22 years suicide by hanging anging herself inside her room using a dupa years, committed a dupatta (Odhani) tied around her nec her neck on 02.09.2021 at around 8:00 AM. B AM. Based on the said report, Malka Malkangiri P.S. Case No. 382 of 2021 wa 21 was registered, and investigation ation commenced. The report further alle r alleged that the deceased was in as in regular telephonic contact with on ith one Biswajeet Mandal (the Petitio Petitioner), and she was often seen in a stat a state of distress. It was alleged tha ed that the deceased committed suicide due de due to the said reason. The repo report also stated that the mobile pho le phone number 8457955239 belon belonged to the Petitioner. CRLMC No.2641 of 1 of 2022 Page 1 of 8 3. Learned c ned counsel for the Petitioner submitte bmitted that the deceased, Anuradh nuradha, had met the Petitioner accidentall entally at Jeypore Bus Stop around ound three years prior to the incident whil t while both were travelling to Malk Malkangiri in the same bus. What began began as a casual acquaintance grad adually developed into a relationshi tionship involving exchange of mess f messages, chats, and interactions over s ver social media, although there ha ere had been no physical meeting for ab or about 9 to 10 months preceding eding the unfortunate incident of suicide on ide on 02.09.2021.
Legal Reasoning
prosecution 306 IPC. 17. M. Mo Ramesh Ku wherein it was held as under:- 618, where . This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kum 41. This the meanin amined different shades of examine stigation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 62 “instigat provoke, 20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, pr “20. I satisfy the incite incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satis ot necessary requir requirement of instigation though it is not nec ffect or what that actual words must be used to that effect o that ac ssarily and instigation must necessarily consti constitutes uence. Yet a specif specifically be suggestive of the consequence quence must reasonable certainty to incite the consequenc reason nt one is not be cap be capable of being spelt out. The present one his acts or a cas a case where the accused had by his a of conduct omission or by a continued course of c omiss eceased was created such circumstances that the decease create mmit suicide left w with no other option except to commit s have been in which case an instigation may have in wh of anger or inferred. A word uttered in the fit of an inferre equences to emotio emotion without intending the consequen tigation.” actual actually follow cannot be said to be instigation nclusion that the said case this Court came to the conclusio In the sa le on record ere is no evidence and material available on there is -accused erefrom an inference of the appellant- wherefro Seema (the ving abetted commission of suicide by Seem having a be drawn.” pellant’s wife therein) may necessarily be draw appellan - ereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:- Thereaft The intention of the legislature and the ratio 45. The ses decided by this Court are clear that in or cases de nvict a person under Section 306 IPC there ha convict a lear mens rea to commit the offence. It also a clear m active act or direct act which led the decea an active mmit suicide seeing no option and this ac commit ve been intended to push the deceased into have bee sition that he/she committed suicide.” position e ratio of the t in order to ere has to be requires deceased to his act must into such a [Emphasis sup As has been held hereinabove, to satisf rement of instigation the accused by his sis supplied] satisfy the his act or 18. As ha requiremen CRLMC No.2641 of 1 of 2022 Page 5 of 8 sion or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the decease ith no other option except to commit suicide. held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and em intending the consequences to actually duct should eceased was cide. It was and emotion ually follow omission o have create left with no also held th without int cannot be s ot be said to be instigation.”“ 7. The very m very mandate of the provision under Sectio Section 306 of the IPC postulates a c tes a case where if any person instigates oth tes other person to commit suicide an ide and as a result of such instigation the n the other person commit suicide, cide, the person causing instigation is l n is liable to be punished for the o r the offence under Section 306 of the IPC e IPC for abetting the commission of ion of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a bring a case within the substantive pr ive provision for the offence under Section ection 306 of the IPC, there must a ust a case of suicide and in the commission ission of the said offence, the person person who is said to have abetted the comm commission of the suicide must have t have played an active role by act of insti f instigation or by doing a certain ac tain act to facilitate the commission of suic of suicide. Section 306 of the Indian Indian Penal Code contemplates a situati situation where a person abets the c the commission of suicide by another. As r. As reiterated by the Hon’ble Supre Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, ions, the essential ingredients of the of the offence under Section 306 IPC inc C include a clear mens rea and a pr d a proximate, active act of instigation or fa n or facilitation by the accused. It is . It is not sufficient that the deceased was d was merely in a state of emotiona otional vulnerability or that there existed existed a strained relationship betwe between the parties. There must be cogent cogent material to show that the accu e accused, by his conduct or acts directly rectly or indirectly created circumstan umstances so compelling that the deceased w ased was left with no other option bu ion but to end their life. 8. In the pres e present case, the death of a young woma woman by suicide is, without doubt, doubt, a deeply unfortunate and heart-rendi rending incident. CRLMC No.2641 of 1 of 2022 Page 6 of 8 However, when a hen assessed in light of the settled legal legal position, the materials on record record do not disclose any act or omission o ssion on the part of the Petitioner tha er that could be construed as instigatio tigation or active abetment. The Pet he Petitioner was stated to be residing and ng and working at Kalinganagar, app r, approximately 800 kilometres away from from Malkangiri, at the relevant tim ant time. There is no indication of any th any threatening or coercive communi munication proximate to the time of the i f the incident. The deceased was resi as residing with her family and was not i not in a state of isolation or compu compulsion that would suggest she had no al no alternative but to end her life. W life. While the emotional distress that may t may have arisen from personal onal misunderstandings is acknowled nowledged, such circumstances, in es, in the absence of any active role or culp or culpable mental state attributable t table to the Petitioner, cannot attract crim t criminal liability under Section 306 n 306 IPC. 9. Courts mus rts must exercise great caution before attribut attributing criminal culpability in case n cases of suicide, especially when such attr ch attribution may arise solely from s from strained personal equations. The law d law demands not only sensitivity tow ity towards the victim but also fairness and ss and subjectivity in determining the ng the liability of the accused. In that light, light, allowing the continuation of t of the criminal proceeding against the st the Petitioner, despite the absen absence of the foundational ingredients o ients of abetment, would be unjust. njust. Compassion cannot replace legal s egal scrutiny, and fairness must guid t guide the dispensation of justice. 10. In view of iew of the aforesaid analysis and having r ving regard to the settled legal positi position, this Court is of the considered opi ed opinion that the continuance of th of the criminal proceeding against the P the Petitioner in connection with with Malkangiri P.S. Case No. 382 . 382 of 2021, CRLMC No.2641 of 1 of 2022 Page 7 of 8 corresponding to ng to G.R. Case No. 771 of 2021, pending ending before the learned S.D.J.M., .J.M., Malkangiri, would amount to an a an abuse of the process of law and w and would result in prejudice to the Petitio Petitioner. 11. According ordingly, the proceeding so far as it relates to lates to the present Petitioner stands q ands quashed. 12. The CRLM CRLMC is accordingly allowed. (Chittaranjan Da an Dash) Judge A.K.Pradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 11-Jul-2025 17:31:32 CRLMC No.2641 of 1 of 2022 Page 8 of 8
Arguments
It is the contention tention of the Petitioner that the deceased w ased was earnestly seeking refuge in ge in the form of a marital relationship, wh ip, which she had proposed to the the Petitioner on multiple occasions. H ns. However, the Petitioner, being o eing overwhelmed by familial obligations i tions including the post-operative car ve care of his mother, and constrained b ined by a meagre income from a new a newly acquired job, found it practically i cally impossible to commit to marita marital life. Despite his efforts to make t ake the deceased understand his sit his situation, she remained doubtful of hi of his intentions, attributing the del he delay in marriage to lack of commitmen itment, and often reacted adversely. ersely. At the time of the incident, the Pe the Petitioner was working at Kalin Kalinganagar, which is situated approxi pproximately 800 kilometres away away from Malkangiri. The alleged con d conduct of the Petitioner during uring the proximate period leading to the i o the incident was neither hurtful no ful nor threatening, nor did it involve any e any element of blame, harassment sment, or instigation that could attract the in t the ingredients of abetment under Se der Section 306 of the IPC. Therefore, the P , the Petitioner has prayed for quashin uashing of the proceedings as the materials terials reflected in the FIR as well as ell as in the course of investigation do not o not disclose any nst him. offence against him CRLMC No.2641 of 1 of 2022 Page 2 of 8 4. Learned co ned counsel for the State, on the other han er hand, submitted that there are mate e materials on record which raise a strong trong presumption against the Petition etitioner warranting a trial, and the contentio ntentions raised by the Petitioner are m r are matters of defence, which cannot be ad t be adjudicated at the threshold stag d stage so as to give a complete goodbye odbye to the very initiation of the pr the proceeding and as such insisted for dism or dismissal of the prayer. 5. Before del re delving into the case at hand, it is apposi apposite to refer to the relevant provi provisions of the Indian Penal Code that e that govern the offence alleged ag ed against the Petitioner. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the thing, who— ts the doing g; or Instigates any person to do that thing; or er person or ndly.—Engages with one or more other per that thing, if ons in any conspiracy for the doing of that th ursuance of ct or illegal omission takes place in pursua f that thing; conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that —Intentionally aids, by any act or t or illegal person who, sion, the doing of that thing. 1.—A anation epresentation, or by wilful concealment rial fact which he is bound to disclose, volun es or procures, or attempts to cause or proc to be done, is said to instigate the doing o by wilful by ment of a , voluntarily r procure, a oing of that 107. Abetm of a thing, First.—Ins Secondly. persons in an act or i that conspi or Thirdly.— omission, t Explanatio misreprese material fa causes or p thing to be thing 306. Abetm suicide, wh shall be description and shall al Abetment of suicide.—If any person co de, whoever abets the commission of such su be punished with imprisonment of ription for a term which may extend to ten shall also be liable to fine. on commits such suicide, t of either to ten years, CRLMC No.2641 of 1 of 2022 Page 3 of 8 6. It is furthe further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in t urt in the matter of Mahendra Awase ase Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 20 h, 2025 INSC 76 – te of West Gujarat and that in order IPC specific C on the part about the sult of that the intention to abet the or attracting In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujar “14. In Ma her, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in Another, (2 ing out an offence under Section 306 IPC s to bring ou ent as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on th abetment as e accused with an intention to bring abo of the acc de of the person concerned as a result o suicide of ent is required. It was further held that the int abetment is e accused to aid or to instigate or to ab of the acc ased to commit suicide is a must for attr deceased t on 306. Section 306 15. In Am Bengal, (20 “12. Thu that befo under Se examine also asse find out to the v alternativ borne in suicide t inciteme the alleg positive the part person t Section 3 Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of , (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held as unde 2. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the at before holding an accused guilty of an o der Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupu amine the facts and circumstances of the ca o assess the evidence adduced before it in o d out whether the cruelty and harassment met the victim had left the victim with no ernative but to put an end to her life. It is also rne in mind that in cases of alleged abetm icide there must be proof of direct or indirect citement to the commission of suicide. Mer allegation of harassment without there bein sitive action proximate to the time of occurre e part of the accused which led or compell rson to commit suicide, conviction in ter ction 306 IPC is not sustainable. s under:- ken the view f an offence scrupulously the case and it in order to nt meted out th no other is also to be abetment of direct acts of . Merely on re being any ccurrence on mpelled the in terms of [Emphasis sup n order to bring a case within the purview of S there must be a case of suicide and ission of the said offence, the person who is abetted the commission of suicide must have tive role by an act of instigation or by doing facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefo f abetment by the person charged with th ce must be proved and established b sis supplied] w of Section and in the ho is said to t have played doing certain Therefore, the ith the said the ed by 16. In order 306 IPC commission have abette an active ro act to facili act of abe offence m CRLMC No.2641 of 1 of 2022 Page 4 of 8 nder Section followed 01) 9 SCC h Kumar has meaning of C p. 629) cution before he could be convicted under S . Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 fo Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001)