Pallavi and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

applicant no. 1 – Smt. Pallavi Jha was married to deceased Aditya Raj at Bhagalpur, Bihar. After the marriage, both husband and wife lived happily at Jamshedpur for some time; that on 21.04.2015, deceased Aditya Raj joined his services 2 with a private company at Pantnagar and started living there within the compound of the company at the company’s quarter alongwith his wife; that the official work of the deceased was of stressful nature due to which he used to live under stress; that on 16.05.2015, the deceased Aditya Raj had some telephonic conversation with his boss Anupam Mishra from Bangalore. After returning home, he fought with applicant no. 1 and assaulted her in anger, after which he locked himself inside the room and committed suicide. As soon as the applicant no. 3 came to know about the incident, he rushed to Pantnagar and after attending the last rituals, took applicant no. 1 to her parental place at Bhagalpur, Bihar. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the applicants on 18.05.2016 by respondent no. 3 (sister of the deceased) at Police Station - Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 42 of 2016, under Sections 306/34 of IPC, alleging therein that applicants tortured her brother Aditya Raj, who committed suicide on 16.05.2016 at his official quarter at Pant Nagar. After investigation, charge- sheet under Section 306/34 IPC was filed. Thereafter, against the cognizance/summoning order dated 10.01.2017, the applicants were summoned to face the trial. Feeling aggrieved, they preferred the present criminal miscellaneous application. 3

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no. 2 is settled in Bhagalpur, Bihar and applicant no. 3 is settled in Mumbai and have never interfered in the family matters of applicant no. 1. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants cannot be charged under Section 306/34 IPC as there was no live link or nexus between the suicidal act of the deceased and any action of the applicants; that the applicants never instigated/abated the deceased for commission of suicide; that there cannot be any presumption of abatement against the applicants as none of the applicants had subject the deceased to any cruelty and, that the investigation has not brought out any omission or commission of the applicants, which led to the deceased to take any extreme step of committing suicide.

5. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance in the case of Ayyub and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2025) 3 SCC 334. Paragraph 20 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:- “20. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107IPC 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. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must (see Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide (see Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. and M. Mohan v. State and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh).” for attracting Section 306 IPC 4

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further placed reliance in the case of Mahendra Awase Vs. State of M.P., (2025) 4 SCC 801. Paragraphs 12 to 19 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereunder:- “12. As is clear from the plain language of the sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly — 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.

13. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943] , the appellant remarked to the deceased that “go and die” and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that : (SCC p. 439, para 3) “3. … Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events.”

14. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1048 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 682] , this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107IPC 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. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.

15. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , this Court held as under : (SCC p. 712, para 12) “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306IPC, 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 306IPC is not sustainable.”

16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the 5 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 306IPC.

17.M. Mohan v. State [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] followed Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , wherein it was held as under : (M. Mohan case [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] , SCC p. 637, para 41) “41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under : (SCC p. 629) ‘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.’ In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.”

18. Thereafter, this Court in M. Mohan [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] held : (SCC p. 638, para 45) “45. 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 306IPC 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.”

19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

7. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433. Paragraph 21 and paragraphs 27 to 30 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereunder:- 6 “21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualise the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.”

27. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab [Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 56] , and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder : (SCC p. 134, paras 12-13) “12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating 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.

13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] , 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 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.”

28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal [State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.

29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan.

30. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat [Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 616 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , this Court, with reference to Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet the 7 social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated or forced to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of proving the preconditions permitting the presumption as ingrained therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution. That the prosecution as well has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had committed suicide on being abetted by the person charged under Section 306 IPC, was emphasised.”

8. Per contra, learned State Counsel has submitted that on the basis of complete case diary submitted by the Investigating Officer, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case against all the applicants and after perusing the entire material evidence on record, has rightly passed summoning order dated 10.01.2017. Thus, there is no illegality in the summoning order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record.

10. The relevant provisions of the IPC that consideration are 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.

107. Abetment of a thing—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— Firstly.— 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 wilful misrepresentation, 8 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.”

11. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.

12. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

13. After going through the record and hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case, there is 9 no iota of evidence that the applicants were involved either actively and passively in instigating or abetting the brother of the complainant i.e. deceased Aditya Raj to commit suicide. The ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC have remained unproved and thus the applicants deserve to be acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC.

14. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 192 of 2017, ‘State Vs. Pallavi and Others, U/s 306, 34 IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed, qua the applicants. Ujjwal (Alok Mahra, J.) 25.07.2025