Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Bhanwar Singh S/o Heer Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 794 of 2019
Decided on : 18-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 365, 323, 341, 149 - Criminal revision petition against order framing charges for offences - The court quashed the charge under Section 306 IPC due to lack of evidence of instigation or abetment, while upholding charges under Sections 365, 323, and 341 IPC - The essence of abetment requires a clear link between the accused's actions and the victim's suicide, which was not established - The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment do not suffice for abetment under Section 306 IPC. (Paras 11, 20, 24, 26)
(B) Abetment of suicide - Legal principles - For a charge under Section 306 IPC, there must be direct or indirect instigation or intentional aid to the victim, with clear mens rea to abet the suicide - Mere allegations of harassment without proximate actions leading to suicide are insufficient. (Paras 10, 12, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of harassing the deceased, leading to his suicide, but evidence did not establish direct instigation or abetment. The deceased's suicide note mentioned harassment but lacked evidence of direct causation.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence linking the petitioners' actions to the suicide, quashing the charge under Section 306 IPC while allowing charges under other sections.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners instigated the deceased to commit suicide and whether the charges under Section 365 IPC were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear connection between the accused's actions and the victim's suicide, which was not present in this case.
Result: The revision petition was partly allowed, quashing the charge under Section 306 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 01.12.2018 & 22.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 29/2015 whereby, the learned Judge ordered to frame charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 341, 323, 365, 306/149 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a written report was filed by the complainant before the police stating therein that on 21.05.2015, when his brother was coming back from Fulmal, the accused persons alongwith 5-6 other persons gave beating to complainant’s brother and robbed a sum of Rs.2 lcs. When his brother-in-law Kunna Ram, brother Bhagwan Ram and Sohan lal asked him, he informed that the accused persons had beaten him and threatened to kill him. On the very next day, Kunna Ram received a phone call regarding hanging of Kishan lal from a tree.
3. On this report, the police registered FIR no. 235/2015 for offence under Sections 302, 201, 147, 147, 149 IPC and started investigation. After due investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the present petitioners for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 365, 306/149 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions from where it was committed for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali ordered to frame charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 341, 365, 306/149 IPC. Hence, this present revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that no offence under Sections 306/149, 365 of IPC is made out against the petitioners as there is no evidence pointing out complicity of the petitioners in commission of offence. It is argued that the complainant’s brother Bhagwan lal, Sohan lal and brother-in-law Kunna Ram had met deceased Kishan lal who told them about the alleged beating given to him but there is neither any mention with regard to any physical injury caused to him nor any complaint or report was lodged by Kishan lal. It is argued that the deceased in his suicide note, had mentioned that the accused petitioners were annoying him and that he was distressed. Thus, the accused petitioners 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 Section 365 IPC is also not made out, inasmuch as, as per statement of the witness, the accused had dropped Kishan lal back. Therefore, the trial court has committed an error in framing charge for offence under Sections 306 of IPC and Section 365 IPC.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent argued that the deceased in his suicide note has specifically named the present petitioners that they harassed and beaten him, therefore, he is committing suicide. Further it is settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of powers conferred under Section 397 Cr.P.C is very limited. Therefore, the trial court has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under Sections 341/149, 323/149, 365/149, 306/149 IPC. Learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Sudbir Pingle reported in 2000 Cr.L.J 944 and this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Rampuriya Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR Online 2024 Raj. 928.
6. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. From the perusal of FIR and documents on record, the allegation against the present petitioners is that he harassed and tortured the deceased Kishan lal, due to which he committed suicide. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 306 IPC reads as under :--
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets t
For a charge under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or abetment linked to the victim's suicide; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
To sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of intentional abetment or instigation is required, with actions having a proximate link to the suicide.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding, which was absent in this case.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, there must be clear evidence of instigation or a direct act by the accused that leads the victim to take their life.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, clear mens rea and direct acts of instigation or aid are required, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment.
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.
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation or participation in suicide; mere allegations or psychological pressure are insufficient to establish abetment.
The court held that mere allegations of harassment do not establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without direct evidence of instigation or encouragement.
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
