Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Patel Gandalal Joitaram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1309 of 2005 With R/Criminal Appeal No. 2107 of 2005
Decided On : 24-09-2025
Parties and Procedural History
- Appellant (Accused No.1, Patel Gandalal Joitaram) convicted under Section 306 r/w 114 IPC by Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.70/2005; appeal under CrPC S.374(2). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Accused No.2 served sentence; Accused Nos.3-5 acquitted by trial court. (!) (!)
- State appeal under CrPC S.377 for sentence enhancement against Accused Nos.1-2. (!) (!)
Factual Background
- Deceased (Satishkumar Ramanlal Tuvar) ran sofa repair business as sub-tenant in appellant's shop (original tenant: Accused No.2); paid Rs.1,00,000 pagdi and Rs.500/month rent to Accused No.2. [2] (!) (!) (!)
- Appellant (shop owner) objected to sub-letting; civil suit (Regular Civil Suit No.315/2003) filed by Accused No.2 and deceased against appellant and wife. [2] (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Deceased vacated shop ~1 year before suicide (31.07.2003 agreement Exh.21 with appellant's wife); shifted business to new shop (Bandhan Hotel) 8-9 months prior. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Deceased died 24.08.2004 by consuming poison (Malathion/Organophosphorus); confirmed suicidal by medical evidence. (!) (!) (!) [12][13]
Prosecution Case
- Wife's complaint (P.W.3): Threats by appellant, Accused No.2, and others over shop possession/pagdi; deceased distressed night before suicide. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [9] (!) (!)
- Suicide note (Exh.19/20, handwriting confirmed): Names Paresh Patel, Ashwin Patel, Aakash Chaudhary (V.B. Finance), appellant, Accused No.2; alleges cheating of Rs.1,80,000 by appellant/Accused No.2. (!) (!) (!) [15]
Trial Court Findings (Overturned)
- Convicted Accused Nos.1-2 under S.306 r/w 114 IPC: Illegal sub-letting by Accused No.2; refusal to return pagdi/possession drove deceased to suicide; threats created no-option situation. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Acquitted Accused Nos.3-5: No specific evidence of threats/nexus. (!) (!) (!)
Appellant/State Arguments
- Appellant: Civil dispute; no proximate instigation/mens rea; deceased had new business, pending suit; suicide note lacks proximity; ordinary prudent person test unmet. [3] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Prosecution/State: Continuous threats/pagdi refusal proved abetment; enhance sentence. [4][5]
High Court Analysis and Ratio
- No Proximate Instigation: Required clear, direct/indirect acts inciting suicide in close proximity; mere harassment/allegations insufficient without mens rea leaving no option. [17] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [28] (!) (!)
- Evidence Deficiencies: No proof of threats by appellant (no visits to home/new shop); pagdi to Accused No.2 (not appellant); Rs.1,80,000/cheating unproved; Exh.21 (1 year prior) unrelated; new business 8-9 months ongoing, no financial distress. (!) (!) (!) (!) [11][14][16][19][21][25]
- Suicide Note: Diary/accounts; names persons but no specific acts/incidents of instigation by appellant/Accused No.2; primary blame on others (Paresh/Ashwin/Aakash). (!) (!) (!) [22][24]
- Civil Dispute Nature: Pending suit; no forceful dispossession/conspiracy proved; recourse available via court. (!) (!) (!) (!) [19]
- Mens Rea Absent: No intent to provoke suicide; acts (if any) not compelling for ordinary prudent person. (!) [20] (!) [26][27]
Decision
- Acquit appellant (Accused No.1); set aside conviction/sentence; dismiss State appeal (no enhancement). [30]
- Refund fine Rs.2,50,000 to appellant (deposited for complainant/children). [31] (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1) |
| 2. details of the deceased's suicide and context (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments against the conviction (Para 3) |
| 4. prosecution's assertions on threats and instigation (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. court's evaluation of evidence (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. establishing legal principles on abetment and suicide (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. conclusion on the need for direct incitement to suicide (Para 28 , 29) |
| 8. final decision of the court (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
GITA GOPI, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No.1309 of 2005 is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) by the appellant being accused No.1, who came to be convicted under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by the judgment and order dated 14.06.2005 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.70 of 2005.
1.1 The trial was against five of the accused. The accused No.2, as per jail remarks has already undergone the sentence. He had been in jail for about 2 years 8 months and 23 days and came to be released from jail on 20.02.2008. While accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 427 and 506(1) read with Section 114 of IPC.
1.2 The present appellant as accused No.1 and accused No.2 were exonerated from the offence punishable under Sections 427 and 506(1) of the IPC.
1.3 Criminal Appeal No.2107 of 2005 is filed by the State under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 114 of IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2.
2. The prosecution case was that deceased Satishkumar Ramanlal Tuvar was having his business in the shop whose original owner is the present appellant – Patel Gandalal Joitaram. While accused No.2 – Chauhan Jamnadas Mangilal was the tenant of accused No.1. Deceased – Satishkumar Ramanlal Tuvar was in shop in the status of sub-tenant of accused No.2.
2.1 According to the prosecution case, deceased had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to accused No.2 as deposit with agreed rent of Rs.500/- per month, which the deceased was to pay to accused No.2. The prosecution case is that sub-letting of the shop was noticed by the present appellant being the owner of the shop, who objected the deceased as well as accused No.2. There was civil litigation between the parties on the issue of sub-letting filed by accused No.2 and the deceased, against present appellant and his wife.
2.2 The complaint came to be filed by Sarswatiben wife of deceased on 29.08.2004 with Mehsana Police Station, which was registered as Cr.No.I-190/2004. The complaint by her narrated that she had married deceased 20 years ago and out of their matrimonial life, they have one son and one daughter. The husband on 24.08.2004 was in his shop below ‘Bandhan’ Hotel, where he was having his business of repairing Sofa-set cover and on that day, he consumed poison, and during the course of his treatment at Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, he died.
2.3 The complainant stated that the old shop of her husband was in the line of Ashoka Guest House, Opposite Nagarpur College, where he was running his work in the shop for about last nine years. The shop was given as sub-tenant and for that purpose Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as deposit (Pagadi) and the rent decided was Rs.500/- for the shop. The complainant stated that in the shop, her husband was doing the business of hood- lining and was manufacturing Sofas. The original tenant was accused No.2 – Chauhan Jamnadas Mangilal.
2.4 It was alleged by the complainant that the present appellant as owner of the shop had forced her husband to vacate the shop. Thereafter, her husband had asked to return back the deposit amount. While taking away the possession, the complainant alleged that the present appellant had not returned a single ‘paisa’ of the ‘Pagadi’ amount and had threatened that her husband had to va
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear, proximate acts of instigation by the accused must be proved, lacking mere allegations of harassment.
Mens rea must be clearly established for abetment of suicide; the accused's intoxication and actions did not demonstrate intent to drive the victim to suicide, necessitating evaluation of multiple co....
Section 306 of IPC reads as abetment of suicide.
To convict under Section 306 IPC, instigation or abetment must be proximate to the suicide, and mere demand for money does not suffice as sufficient cause for abetment.
For liability under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement in the suicide, which was absent in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide, the requirement of mens rea for abetment, and the caution against ....
Non-payment of dues alone does not constitute abetment of suicide under IPC without clear evidence of instigation or overt acts by the accused.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
