SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 455

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Patel Babubhai Manohardas and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1388 of 2014
Decided On : 05-03-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta,Adv. Mr. Bhanu Kapoor, Adv. Mr. J.k.Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Abetment of suicide – In order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence – Act attributed should not only be proximate to time of suicide but should also be of such a nature that deceased was left with no alternative but to take drastic step of committing suicide.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306 and 114 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 108 and 54] – Abetment of suicide – Conviction and sentence – Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing – Without a positive proximate act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained – Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence – Act attributed should not only be proximate to time of suicide but should also be of such a nature that deceased was left with no alternative but to take drastic step of committing suicide – Until and unless some guilty intention on part of accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict accused for an offence under Section 306 IPC – There are significant inconsistencies in evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding occurrence – Such inconsistencies clearly impeach credibility of prosecution witnesses – No signed cheques of deceased or cheque book or passbook of deceased were recovered and exhibited in court – In such circumstances, very substratum of prosecution case that accused persons were making illegal gain by blackmailing deceased falls flat – There is no recovery of any trace of poison consumed by deceased at place of occurrence – No act is attributed to appellants proximate to time of suicide which was of such a nature that deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide – Appellants acquitted. (Paras 22, 23, 24, 33, 35, 36, 38, 45 and 46)

Facts of the case:

Appellants were tried under Sections 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 each with a default stipulation. By the common judgment and order dated 17.12.2013, High Court dismissed appeal of appellants and affirmed conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by Trial Court.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment and order of High Court dated 17.12.2013 and of trial court dated 12.05.2011 are hereby set aside. Since appellants are already on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2011.

2. It may be mentioned that the four appellants are accused Nos. 1 to 4. They were convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana vide the judgment and order dated 12.05.2011 in Special Atrocity Case No. 53/2009 under Sections 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 each with a default stipulation.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2011 before the High Court. State of Gujarat also filed Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 2011 for enhancement of sentence. By the common judgment and order dated 17.12.2013, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana (‘trial court’ for short). The appeal filed by the State was also dismissed.

4. It is against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the High Court that the appellants preferred the related SLP (Crl.) No. 2809/2014. However, State did not challenge before this Court dismissal of its appeal by the High Court.

5. This Court by order dated 07.04.2014 had issued notice both on the special leave petition as well as on the prayer for bail. By order dated 04.07.2014, leave was granted. Thereafter, vide the order dated 17.10.2014, this Court granted bail to appellant No. 4. Vide the order dated 11.05.2015, appellant No. 1 was also granted bail. Thereafter, by the order dated 14.09.2015, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were granted bail.

6. Prosecution case in brief is that one Jaybalaben lodged first information before the Mehsana Taluka police station on 14.05.2009 stating that at 08:00 AM on 25.04.2009, she and her daughter Priyanka had gone to the Amipura water park dispensary as she was working there. At around 01:00 PM, one Jayantibhai Kalidas, a neighbour, came to her dispensary and told her that her mother-in-law was ill. On hearing this, she and her daughter came back home immediately in a rickshaw. When she reached her house, she saw many people had gathered there. She went inside the house and saw her husband Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai lying on a cot with his younger and elder brothers standing nearby. Though she tried to revive him, he did not respond; he had already died. As she started weeping, the ladies who were present there told her that her husband had consumed poison. Foul smell of poison was coming from his mouth. First informant stated that her husband was taken to the village dispensary where he was declared dead. Thereafter police came. After completion of necessary paper works, body of her husband was taken to Mehsana Civil Hospital for postmortem examination on completion of which the body was handed over to the family.

6.1. Jaybalaben continued with her narration. She stated that about a year ago, a case of misappropriation was registered against her husband Dashrathbhai Karsanbhai in his office. She and her elder brother-in-law Jayantibhai had asked her husband as to why he needed so much of money to which the reply of her husband was that one cleaning worker in his office by the name Geetaben had trapped him in a love scandal and thereafter started blackmailing him for money. It was for this reason that he had to withdraw money from the office to give her.

6.2. When her elder brother-in-law Jayantibhai called Geetaben, her mother Jasiben, her husband Dahyabhai and relative Babubhai Patel to return the money, they initially agreed to do so but did not return. They also took away ornaments (jewellery).

6.3. Jaybalaben also stated that at the time of death of her husband, they found one note of two pages from the pocket of h

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top