Sanjay Singh Faujdar v. State of U.P.

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Arimardan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of applicant, Sanjay Singh Faujdar, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 142 of 2024, under Sections 85, 115 (2), 324 (4), 108, Police Station- Malpura, District- Agra. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by Sessions Judge, Agra, on 06.06.2025.

The allegation made in the FIR is that on 28.03.2025 the applicant and his family members had committed murder of sister of the first informant by strangulation. The FIR was initially lodged under Sections 85, 115 (2), 103 BNS but after investigation case was converted under Sections 85, 115 (2), 324 (4), 108 BNS.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 26.04.2025. As per the post mortem report, the deceased has sustained 4 abrasions, 1 contusion and 1 ligature mark size 32cm x 03cm present all around upper part of neck except 06cm left side of neck laterally, 04cm below mid line chin, 05cm below right ear. The cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased was short tempered lady and committed suicide due to this reason only on her insisting 2 BAIL No. 21532 of 2025 applicant shifted to Agra City. The sister of the deceased was married to the real brother of applicant and she was living happily and no complaint was ever made by her. It is submitted that after recording statement of witnesses the investigating officer has converted the case under the aforesaid sections. Applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.

It has also been argued that there is no evidence implicating the applicant for abetting suicide. In order to bring home, the charge of abatement to suicide, specific abatement of the accused with intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abatement is required. The intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased is necessary for attracting Section 108 B.N.S. Besides mere harassment would not constitute as sufficient instigation to commit suicide and it is required to be shown that the alleged harassment left the victim with no other alternative other than to commit suicide. In order to buttress his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 5175 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7957 of 2024 dated

10.12.2024). Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: "18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea ? the intention to abet the act ? is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, wherein it was observed that: "25. 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 306IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the 3 BAIL No. 21532 of 2025 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. "

To bring a conviction under section 306, IPC it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation of circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, defined the word "instigate" as under: "

Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation (2001) 9 SCC 618 ? 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. "

Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes