State of U.P v. Party

3. The allegation made in the FIR is that it is a case of ancestral property dispute between the husband of the informant namely Rakesh Kumar and his brothers namely Suresh Kumar (Applicant) and Ramesh Kumar. It is alleged that the applicant and his brother Ramesh Kumar wanted to usrup the share of ancestral property belonging to husband of informant. It is further submits that the applicant and Ramesh Kumar called her husband Rakesh Kumar at the garment shop of Ramesh Kumar on 30.12.2010 at around 11:00 a.m. where the applicant and Ramesh Kumar tried to coerce informant's husband for making signatures on certain documents and when he refused the same, the applicant and Ramesh Kumar had assaulted her husband Rakesh Kumar. It is further alleged in the FIR that when she reached on the spot along with her sons namely Sachin Kumar and Ashish Kumar, the applicant and Ramesh Kumar again tried to forcibly obtain signatures of her husband on certain documents and when he refused the same, they abused him and gave life threats. It is further alleged in the 2 BAIL No. 25848 of 2025 FIR that when the first informant tried to lodged the FIR of the alleged incident, the Chouki Incharge, Pukhraya, refused to register her complaint and also tried to pressurize her husband to give his share in the ancestral property in lieu of some money and threatened her husband to lodge false cases against him. It is further alleged in the FIR that aggrieved wiht the aforesaid incident, the husband of the informant left his house in the night of 30.12.2010 and committed suicide by jumping in front of a train and a suicide note was found from the pocket of the deceased, wherein he has stated that he has committed suicide due to abduct of the applicant and his brother Ramesh Kumar.

4. 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 03.06.2025. He has criminal antecedent of two cases, which has been explained in para 72 and 73 of the affidavit and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to property dispute. It is submitted that the incident took place on 30.12.2010 and its FIR was lodged after a considerable delay of approximately two months on

10.02.2011. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The alleged suicide note is forged, false and concocted only to falsely implicate the applicant and his brother Ramesh Kumar and the same was planted by the informant and the handwriting of the alleged suicide note was not of the deceased. It is argued that the informant has categorically stated in her statement that she was not the eyewitness of the alleged incident. The Chowki Incharge namely Sri Haridaya Narayan Tiwari, clearly depicts that the entire version contained in the FIR is concocted story. As per the inquest report dated 31.10.2010, the cause of death is said to be rail accident. It is further argued that the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner submitted charge sheet dated 17.05.2011 against the applicant and his brother Ramesh Kumar, under Sections 452, 306, 383, 504 and 506 IPC only relying on the statement of first informant and her son Sachin Kumar. The Circle Officer Bhognipur, vide order dated 09.11.20211 returned the charge sheet dated 17.05.2011 along 3 BAIL No. 25848 of 2025 with entire case diary for further investigation. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to another Investigating Officer, who again recorded the statement of first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on

09.11.2011 and submitted charge sheet before the court concerned and the court concerned has taken cognizance on the same on 23.11.2011. It is further submitted that the applicant being aggrieved with the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer, preferred an application before the DIG, Kanpur Region, pointing out that no forensic examination of the alleged suicide note was ever conducted, which was forwarded to Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, vide order dated 11.07.2014, directed further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer preferred applications dated 11.08.2014 and 27.09.2014 before the trial court concerned in order to provide the original copy of suicide note. The aforesaid applications were rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, vide order dated 08.10.2014, observing that once the charge sheet has been filed and the court concerned has taken cognizance on the same, there is no reason for the court to return the case diary to the Investigating Officer. Against that order, the State has preferred a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat. The Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, vide order dated 19.01.2015 has rejected the same. It is further submitted that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant. No offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant. The co-accused Ramesh Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 11.05.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2957 of 2022 and the present proceeding against the applicant are frivolous and malicious. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

6. It has also been argued that there is no evidence implicating the applicant for abetting suicide. In order to bring home, the charge of abetment to suicide, specific abetment of the accused with 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 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 4 BAIL No. 25848 of 2025 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 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."

19. 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: "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to 5 BAIL No. 25848 of 2025 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."

24. 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 of human behavior and

3. The allegation made in the FIR is that it is a case of ancestral property dispute between the husband of the informant namely Rakesh Kumar and his brothers namely Suresh Kumar (Applicant) and Ramesh Kumar. It is alleged that the applicant and his brother Ramesh Kumar wanted to usrup the share of ancestral property belonging to husband of informant. It is further submits that the applicant and Ramesh Kumar called her husband Rakesh Kumar at the garment shop of Ramesh Kumar on 30.12.2010 at around 11:00 a.m. where the applicant and Ramesh Kumar tried to coerce informant's husband for making signatures on certain documents and when he refused the same, the applicant and Ramesh Kumar had assaulted her husband Rakesh Kumar. It is further alleged in the FIR that when she reached on the spot along with her sons namely Sachin Kumar and Ashish Kumar, the applicant and Ramesh Kumar again tried to forcibly obtain signatures of her husband on certain documents and when he refused the same, they abused him and gave life threats. It is further alleged in the 2 BAIL No. 25848 of 2025 FIR that when the first informant tried to lodged the FIR of the alleged incident, the Chouki Incharge, Pukhraya, refused to register her complaint and also tried to pressurize her husband to give his share in the ancestral property in lieu of some money and threatened her husband to lodge false cases against him. It is further alleged in the FIR that aggrieved wiht the aforesaid incident, the husband of the informant left his house in the night of 30.12.2010 and committed suicide by jumping in front of a train and a suicide note was found from the pocket of the deceased, wherein he has stated that he has committed suicide due to abduct of the applicant and his brother Ramesh Kumar.

4. 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 03.06.2025. He has criminal antecedent of two cases, which has been explained in para 72 and 73 of the affidavit and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to property dispute. It is submitted that the incident took place on 30.12.2010 and its FIR was lodged after a considerable delay of approximately two months on

10.02.2011. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The alleged suicide note is forged, false and concocted only to falsely implicate the applicant and his brother Ramesh Kumar and the same was planted by the informant and the handwriting of the alleged suicide note was not of the deceased. It is argued that the informant has categorically stated in her statement that she was not the eyewitness of the alleged incident. The Chowki Incharge namely Sri Haridaya Narayan Tiwari, clearly depicts that the entire version contained in the FIR is concocted story. As per the inquest report dated 31.10.2010, the cause of death is said to be rail accident. It is further argued that the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner submitted charge sheet dated 17.05.2011 against the applicant and his brother Ramesh Kumar, under Sections 452, 306, 383, 504 and 506 IPC only relying on the statement of first informant and her son Sachin Kumar. The Circle Officer Bhognipur, vide order dated 09.11.20211 returned the charge sheet dated 17.05.2011 along 3 BAIL No. 25848 of 2025 with entire case diary for further investigation. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to another Investigating Officer, who again recorded the statement of first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on

09.11.2011 and submitted charge sheet before the court concerned and the court concerned has taken cognizance on the same on 23.11.2011. It is further submitted that the applicant being aggrieved with the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer, preferred an application before the DIG, Kanpur Region, pointing out that no forensic examination of the alleged suicide note was ever conducted, which was forwarded to Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, vide order dated 11.07.2014, directed further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer preferred applications dated 11.08.2014 and 27.09.2014 before the trial court concerned in order to provide the original copy of suicide note. The aforesaid applications were rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, vide order dated 08.10.2014, observing that once the charge sheet has been filed and the court concerned has taken cognizance on the same, there is no reason for the court to return the case diary to the Investigating Officer. Against that order, the State has preferred a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat. The Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, vide order dated 19.01.2015 has rejected the same. It is further submitted that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant. No offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant. The co-accused Ramesh Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 11.05.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2957 of 2022 and the present proceeding against the applicant are frivolous and malicious. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

6. It has also been argued that there is no evidence implicating the applicant for abetting suicide. In order to bring home, the charge of abetment to suicide, specific abetment of the accused with 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 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 4 BAIL No. 25848 of 2025 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 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."

19. 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: "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to 5 BAIL No. 25848 of 2025 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."

24. 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 of human behavior and