Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA, J
Jasnath Swami S/o Bhomnath - Appellant
Versus
Bheeknath S/o Bhanwar Nath - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 84/2015
Decided On : 18-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 372 and 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Appeals against acquittal of accused persons charged with abetment of suicide - The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence proving that they induced the deceased to commit suicide. (Paras 1, 10, 28)
(B) Abetment of Suicide - To establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to suicide, which was not present in this case. (Paras 28, 30)
(C) Evidence - The prosecution failed to provide forensic evidence linking the suicide note and diary to the deceased, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the accused's involvement. (Paras 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The deceased committed suicide on 01.01.2006, and the accused were acquitted of charges under Section 306 IPC due to insufficient evidence linking them to the act of suicide.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found no evidence of instigation or provocation by the accused, leading to the acquittal.
Issues: The main issues were whether the accused abetted the suicide and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish their guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere dissatisfaction in marriage does not equate to abetment of suicide, and there must be a clear act of incitement by the accused.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Judgment :
1. The present appeals have been preferred under section 372 r/w section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Cr.P.C .’) by the appellant – complainant so also by the State against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’), whereby the accused – persons namely Bhiknath, Bhanwar Nath and Vari Devi have been acquitted of the charges under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) levelled against them.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that accused Bhanwar Nath (respondent No.2) has since passed away and the appeal against him has therefore, been abated. Ordered accordingly.
3. The facts appertain are that on 01.01.2006 one Dinesh @ Bhupendra Nath has committed suicide by hanging himself with a rope tied to the fan in his room.
4. Initially, the competent authority looked into the matter under section 174 Cr.P.C .; an inquest was issued however, no FIR was registered though a written complaint was submitted by the father of the deceased on 02.01.2006. The complainant – Jasnath (Father of the deceased) again made a representation dated 19.01.2006 and in furtherance whereof, a case was registered on 20.01.2006 vide FIR No.19/2006 in Police Station – Sadar Kotwali, Jodhpur.
5. After the investigation, the police had filed a negative final report; against which the complainant filed a protest petition. Pursuant to the protest petition, investigation was carried out during which the police recovered a suicide note (Ex.P/10) so also the diary, which the deceased – Dinesh used to maintain (Ex.P/9).
6. Charge-sheet then came to be filed; whereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session and the charges under section 306 I.P.C. were framed against the accused persons.
7. The accused persons denied the allegations and thus they were tried for the offence alleged.
8. During the course of trial, Rajendra Arora (PW-1) appeared in the witness box and proved the seizure of the diary (Ex.P/1) and site inspection memo (Ex.P/2); while Premchand (PW-2) proved the inquest report (Ex.P/3), Panchnama (Ex.P/4), seizure memo of odani (Ex.P/5) and memo of handing over of corpse to PW-6 (Ex.P/6). Bhim Nath (PW-3)(Maternal Uncle of the deceased) appeared in the witness box and proved two photographs of Khushboo (wife of the deceased)(Ex.D/1 and D/2) and statement of Premchand recorded during inquiry under section 174 Cr.P.C . (Ex.D/3). Ghewar Nath (PW-4) and Chain Nath (PW-5) (another maternal uncles of the deceased) appeared in the witness box and maintained the statements which they gave under the proceedings of section 202 of the Cr.P.C (Ex.D/4). The complainant – Jasnath (PW-6) appeared in the witness box and proved the report dated 02.01.2006 (Ex.P/7), which was registered as ‘Marg’ or ‘death report’, typed complaint dated 19.01.2006 (Ex.P/8), diary of the deceased (Ex.P/9), suicide note (Ex.P/10) and his application regarding postponement of investigation as the family was bemourned (Ex.P/11). Kan Nath (PW-7) appeared in the witness box and proved the statement given under section 161 of the Cr.P.C . (Ex.D/5) and statement given under section 202 of the Cr.P.C . (Ex.D/6). Bhanwari Devi (PW-8) (Mother of the deceased) proved the photographs of Khushboo (Ex.D/1 and D/2). Dr. M. P. Joshi (PW-9) proved the post-mortem report and the cause of death (Ex.P/9) while Lal Singh (Investigating Officer)(PW-10) deposed about the inquiry, which he had conducted under section 174 of the Cr.P.C . between 02.01.2006 and 23.01.2006. Kishor Singh, S.H.O. (PW-11), who investigated the case and furnished the final negative report, appeared in the witness box and proved the same. Dr. Amita Bhargav (PW-12) (Neuron Physician), who had examined Khushboo, proved her report (Ex.D-7) and deposed that Khushboo was not suffering from polio/para
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be direct evidence of incitement or provocation by the accused, which was not proven in this case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea and active instigation for conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, emphasizing the need for clear evidence to estab....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete evidence to prove the intention of the accused to instigate the deceased to commit suicide, as well as the importance ....
Insufficient evidence of instigation led to the upholding of acquittal in abetment of suicide case, affirming that claims must be backed by credible corroborative evidence.
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.
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 shoul....
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, clear evidence of instigation or incitement is required, which was not proven in this case.
To convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement by the accused, which was not established in this case.
For conviction under Section 306 IPC, prosecution must prove intentional conduct by accused that instigated victim to commit suicide, supported by credible evidence, beyond reasonable doubt.
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
