Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Mangal Singh, S/o Sh. Babu Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp and Anr. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1155 of 2023
Decided On : 24-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 107 - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Charges framed against petitioner for abetment of suicide - Court found no evidence of instigation or complicity in the suicide of the deceased - Mere allegations of harassment insufficient to establish abetment - Revision petition allowed, charges quashed. (Paras 1, 28)
(B) Abetment of Suicide - Essential elements include direct or indirect instigation, close proximity to the act of suicide, and clear mens rea - Financial disputes alone do not constitute abetment without evidence of instigation. (Paras 8, 12, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of harassing the deceased, leading to his suicide. The deceased had a failed romantic relationship, which contributed to his emotional distress. (Paras 1, 28)
Findings of Court:
The trial court erred in framing charges as there was no evidence of instigation or complicity in the suicide. (Paras 28)
Issues: Whether the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide and if the trial court erred in framing charges. (Paras 1, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment do not suffice for abetment; there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding in the act of suicide. (Paras 12, 26)
Result: Revision petition allowed; charges quashed and petitioner discharged.
Judgment :
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)
Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 /401 Cr.P.C against the judgment and order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 07/2023 whereby, the learned Judge ordered to frame charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a written report was filed by the complainant Mukesh Kumar before the SHO, P.S Mount Abu stating therein that his brother Bhartendra Singh had started business of renting bikes similar to accused petitioner. It was alleged that the accused petitioner started harassing and abusing his brother due to which his brother committed suicide on 02.12.2022.
3. On this report, the police registered a case and started investigation. After due investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Corruption Act) Cases, Sirohi whereby, arguments on the charge were heard. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge ordered to frame charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, this present revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no offence under Sections 306 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the petitioner as there is no evidence pointing out complicity of the petitioner in commission of offence. It is argued that the accused and deceased shared good relationship. In fact, the deceased was in relationship with one girl for last three years but she married to some other person, due to which the deceased went into depression and committed suicide. The relationship between the deceased and girl is fortified from the whatsapp chats between them, therefore, the petitioner is nowhere related to the death of Bharat Kumar and it cannot be said that the petitioner instigated or aided the commission of suicide. Therefore, the trial court has committed an error in framing charge for offence under Sections 306 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra (SLP Crl. No. 1073/2023) decided on 20.12.2024, Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2021 7 Supreme 213 and judgments of this Court in the case of Smt. Sangita Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1104/2023 decided on 15.01.2024, Lata Vs. State of Raj & Ors reported in 2022 4 CrlLR 1877 and Pappu Kanwar Vs. State of Raj reported in 2020 2 RLW (Raj) 1481.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent argued that a video clip was recovered from the mobile of the deceased, in which the deceased categorically stated that since petitioner Mangal Singh tortured 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 306 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
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 omnibus allegation against the present petitioner is that he harassed and tortured the deceased Bharat Kumar, 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 per
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding, which was absent in this case.
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 Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aid by the accused, which is proximate to the act of suicide.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be direct acts of incitement closely linked to the suicide, and mere denial of marriage does not constitute 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.
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 Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of the accused's intention to instigate the suicide, which was absent in this case.
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 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.
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
