Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
Samundra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRLMP / 3594 / 2020
Decided On : 11-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 306, 447, 427, 323, 143 - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(y) - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of harassment leading to suicide - Court found no evidence of instigation or abetment by accused, thus quashing the FIR for Section 306 IPC and relevant sections of SC/ST Act. (Paras 2, 20, 21, 22)
(B) Abetment of Suicide - Essential elements - To establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be direct or indirect instigation or intentional aid to the act of suicide, with clear mens rea. Mere allegations of annoyance do not suffice. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The FIR was registered after the deceased self-immolated due to alleged harassment by the accused regarding a water tank construction. The deceased had approached authorities but received no help. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found no proximate link between the accused's actions and the deceased's suicide, ruling that the FIR lacked sufficient evidence for the charges under Section 306 IPC and the SC/ST Act. (Paras 20, 21)
Issues: Whether the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide and whether the allegations under the SC/ST Act were substantiated. (Paras 20, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment; there must be clear evidence of instigation or aid in close proximity to the act of suicide. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Result: FIR quashed for offences under Section 306 IPC and relevant sections of SC/ST Act.
Order :
1. All these three misc petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 65/2020 registered at Police Station Ramdeora, District Jaisalmer for offence under Sections 306, 447, 427 , 323 & 143 IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .
2. An FIR No. 65/2020 came to be registered on the basis of Parcha bayan of Girdhari lal S/o Pratapa Ram in which he stated that on 13.09.2020, Samandar Singh, Babu Singh Tanwar, Jhabar Singh, Madhu Singh, Aam Singh, Derawar Singh and Dilip Singh came to his Dhani and beaten him and his brother Babu lal. It was alleged that they also broke his Water tank. He went to Tehsildar office to complain but Tehsildar was not in his office. Thereafter, he went to Police Station Pokaran, took petrol out of his motorcycle, poured on his body and lit himself. It was alleged that he has taken this step being troubled with Sarpanch and his family members. Initially the FIR was registered for offence under Section 447, 427, 423 , 143 IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but later on Girdhari lal succumbed to injuries and offence under Section 306 IPC was added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that no offence under Sections 306 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1) (r) & 3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the petitioners as there is no evidence pointing out complicity of the petitioner in commission of offence. It is argued that the deceased in his statement has specifically stated that he was upset/troubled as accused Samandar Singh, Babu Singh Tanwar, Sarpanch, Ramdeora and Jhabar Singh, Madhu Singh, Aam Singh, Derawar Singh and Dilip Singh came to his Dhani and broke the Tank. He went to the office of Tehsildar but did not fine anyone thereafter, he went to the Police station, Pokaran. When he did not get any positive response, he self immolated himself. It is argued that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken to be true, even then the deceased ought to have taken legal remedy from the competent authority or Court against the accused persons. The deceased had already approached the authorities including the Sarpanch and police. The accused persons did not instigate or abetted the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, the offence under Section 306 IPC is clearly not made out. Similarly, the offence under Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are also not made out as the deceased in his statement has nowhere stated that the accused persons intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate him being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe within public view or tried to dispossess him. Therefore, the FIR No. 65/2020 registered at Police Station Ramdeora, District Jaisalmer for offence under Sections 306 IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(y) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act may be quashed. Learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2025 0 SC 117 , Prakash & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra (SLP Crl. No. 1073/2023) decided on 20.12.2024 , Mangal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) (Raj) 1644 .
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is well settled legal position that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in exceptional cases when the Court finds that from the allegation made in the FIR/complaint even prima facie no offence is made out against the accused but in the present case from the evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioners for offence under Section 306 IPC . The deceased in his statement has categorically stated that all the accused persons troubled him and therefore, he had taken such a step. Moreover,
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aid by the accused, which is proximate to the act of suicide.
For a charge under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or aiding in suicide is required; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding, which was absent in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish a clear mens rea and active act to push the deceased into a position to commit suicide in cases of....
To establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear intent and direct actions by the accused that compel the victim to commit suicide; emotional distress alone is insufficient.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of the accused's intention to instigate the suicide, which was absent in this case.
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
